A recent episode at Fordham illustrates quite effectively the way American society could unravel as a result of a Supreme Court decision supporting the Masterpeice Cakeshop’s claim that its faith-based objection to same sex marriage should justify restricting service to some customers.
Rodrigue’s Coffee House is an off-campus coffee shop run by a student club at Fordham University.
The shop has a “Safer Space Policy” that reads…
“Rodrigue’s strives to be a safer space on Fordham’s campus. For these reasons, consider the following:
Do not make assumptions about someone’s gender, sexuality, race, class, or experiences. Be aware of your own identity, while being considerate of the personhood of your peers. Be mindful of the ways in which your words and actions impact others. Be aware of the boundaries of other’s space, physical or otherwise, and respect their consent. No racism – No sexism – No homophobia. If you feel that someone has transgressed this policy, we want you to feel comfortable confronting them or approaching a member behind the counter, who is available as a resource to assist you.”
This is Authentic Frontier Gibberish and first degree virtue signalling, and could be fairly translated as “We are pompous and oppressive social justice warriors who are intolerant of the views, statements, or opinions of anyone who does not share our rigid and undeniably correct ideology. We hereby declare our right to ostracize such non-conforming individuals on the basis of what we, in our sole discretion, consider hate speech. Fear us.”
Fordham College Republicans visited the coffee shop wearing MAGA hats. Sure, they did this to provoke a response, knowing what the likely reaction would be, much like a gay couple deliberately asking for a wedding cake at a Christian bakery. Memorialized in the video above, the president of the club didn’t disappoint, and angrily ordered the College Republicans to leave the premises.
“This is a community standard—you are wearing hats that completely violate safe space policy. You have to take it off or you have to go…I am protecting my customers,” the president said. Note that she was “protecting” his customers from exposure to the thrice-removed (initials, the phrase “Make America Great Again” which is benign on its face, and its association with the Trump campaign) message on a cap.
“We are your customers, we bought something,” one of the young Republicans replied.
“I don’t want people like you supporting this club… no one here wants people like you supporting our club,” the president answered. “I am giving you five minutes….You are threatening the integrity of our club. This is a community standard—you are wearing hats that completely violate safe space policy. You have to take it off or you have to go.”
When one of the students then asked her to explain what she thinks the MAGA hat stands for, to which she shouted, “Fascism, Nazis! You have three minutes.”
Legally, of course, this conduct is distinguishable from the conduct of the same-sex marriage decrying cakeshop owner. There is no law prohibiting a proprietor from behaving like a vile, intolerant, rude, bigoted asshole, just basic standards of decency. Nor is there a law protecting conservatives from invidious discrimination in public accommodations based on passively displayed political beliefs, although if this kind of thing starts proliferating, there will be.
However, the toxic effects on the culture by the two examples of intolerance and disdain for other citizens and human beings is exactly the same. Each is similarly mean-spirited, each is based on excessive self-righteousness, and each equally harms society, and the nation by elevating tribalism to standard practice. The theory of the coffee shop proprietor, I suppose—that the mere presence of a hat with initials on it is “unsafe” —-is marginally more outrageous and idiotic than the baker’s claim that selling a cake for a wedding he will not attend, is not invited to, that will never impose on his consciousness once the customers walk out the door unless his cake turns out to be poisoned, and that will take place whether he provides the cake or not, is a burden on his religious faith. Marginally. They both constitute unethical mistreatment of other human beings who deserve better, and breaches of the Golden Rule. That in both cases the victims of the unethical conduct may have intentionally presented themselves to be abused does not mitigate the abuse.
I might as well state the obvious, that the members of the intolerant club operating the shop are 100% behind the cause of forcing the cakemaker to sell the gay couple a wedding cake, but believe it is fair and just to refuse to sell Republicans a muffin.
Sometimes I am embarrassed that I even have to write a post. This is one of those times.
If higher education is manufacturing future citizens who think and act like the club president running the coffee shop, then higher education is doing the nation more harm than good.
Ethics Alarms 
Tragically, higher education is doing the nation more harm than good.
Nice try trying to equate this to the wedding cake issue. Not even close to equivalence — first of all, there is no well-defined religious tenet involved here. Secondly, the bakery would gladly have sold them any cake on hand. It was the specific “custom order” that made it objectionable on religious grounds, as the baker then felt it became a matter of active participation and transitively a condoning of what was perceived to be a profaning of a sacred ritual/institution under the baker’s religious beliefs. But again, they were welcome to take their time and buy a cake and the baker would have went to the trouble to ring it up and hand them their receipt and wish them a pleasant day.
This, on the other hand, is a shrieking triggered liberal objecting to the presidential campaign slogan of a duly elected, current president under preposterous grounds (no pun intended).
You’re spinning. Poorly
1. There was no custom order in dispute, and nothing requested that would have necessarily specifically praised gay marriage. The Colorado court was veery specific about that. If the cake was supposed to say, “Gay marriage is wonderful!” it would be a different case.
2. What part of “Legally, of course, this conduct is distinguishable from the conduct of the same-sex marriage decrying cakeshop owner” was confusing to you?
3. Practically speaking, progressive cant and the demonizing of conservatives and Trump are EXACTLY like a religion.
4. “it became a matter of active participation and transitively a condoning of what was perceived to be a profaning of a sacred ritual/institution under the baker’s religious beliefs”…yes, I know the argument; I’ve read the briefs, heard the orals. It’s bullshit. They think gay relationships are icky and a blight on humanity, and want to make sure everyone knows it.
5. “If you can discriminate against our allies, we’ll discriminate against you—fair is fair.” See, this is what “slippery slope” means. It doesn’t have to be the identical principle…it sllllliiiiipppppss.
Most of humanity agrees with the baker.
the majority becomes even more lopsided when you consider all humans who ever lived.
Rationaalization #1.
I’m not religious and believe in same sex marriage, but saying all religious individuals who are against same sex marriage do so out of some-sort of hatred or Ickiness is making a generalization. In addition, it is outlawed in Christianity, so whatever the baker’s reason is, it’s based in his faith. But yeah, maybe he was just being a jerk, I dont know…
Also, out of curiosity, is the coffee shop’s
discrimation legal? I thought it was illegal to refuse service? Also, I guess that would make the baker’s action illegal also?
At some point discrimination and prejudice is still discrimination and prejudice. “The Bible says I should be prejudiced” is better, sort of, than “I just hate these people,” but it also is a cover.
The reason homosexuality was declared a sin by the men who wrote the Bible is indeed because they found it icky. It’s icky to me, too, but then so are a lot of things heterosexuals do—which those same sages ALSO thought were sins. “It’s based on his faith” is not a get-out-of-accountability-for-bad-conduct free card.
On the other matter, no, it’s not illegal, because, as I said, the law doesn’t forbid that particular kind of discrimination. I wrote,
“There is no law prohibiting a proprietor from behaving like a vile, intolerant, rude, bigoted asshole, just basic standards of decency. Nor is there a law protecting conservatives from invidious discrimination in public accommodations based on passively displayed political beliefs, although if this kind of thing starts proliferating, there will be.”
“There is no law” means “it’s legal.”
But still wrong.
Nor is there a law protecting conservatives from invidious discrimination in public accommodations based on passively displayed political beliefs, although if this kind of thing starts proliferating, there will be.
I would be in favor of broadening current public accommodations law to prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation.
“I would be in favor of broadening current public accommodations law to prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation.”
Me too. (Sorry, I don’t do hastags.)
Of course. California already has such a law, and eventually all states will have to. Which is pathetic.
Thanks for the response. Im actually surprised it isn’t illegal. Wouldn’t it be illegal to not serve a black man? Is that because race is protected but political affiliation isn’t? I’m a little confused on that.
And yeah I agree the baker is being a d!&k. I’m conflicted though since there is a religious spin…I wonder how religious he really is or if he’s just using that as an excuse. I also wonder if an Amish person would bake a cake for a gay wedding…
Race is protected, as are the usual “invidious discriminations”—gender, handicapped, age, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, occupation, educational status. Not political affiliations.
What if one of the MAGA wearers were black? In progressive thinking, couldn’t that person then claim racial discrimination even though it was political? This is a common tactic these days for the left.
Of course, conservatives generally don’t do such things, but the new alt right is watching and calculating. Knee jerk progressive programming is going to get them in trouble, with their own side. See the current witch hunt regarding sexual harassment as an example. The left has provoked such things for generations, but they are now ‘the man’ and vulnerable to the same tactics.
The leading theory among scientists is that Progressives literally cannot see black people wearing MAGA hats. Deep neurological protections, that mankind evolved very very early into our development, would kick in to keep the Progressive from imploding.
The reason homosexuality was declared a sin by the men who wrote the Bible is indeed because they found it icky. It’s icky to me, too, but then so are a lot of things heterosexuals do—which those same sages ALSO thought were sins. “It’s based on his faith” is not a get-out-of-accountability-for-bad-conduct free card.
Jack, that’s an argument I haven’t heard yet, and a good one. People tend to forget that not only did Lawrence v. Texas strike down laws making homosexual conduct criminal, it also struck down 13 states’ laws making certain heterosexual conduct illegal.
So if the baker isn’t asking heterosexual couples if they intend to stick to a strictly biblical marriage where no “deviant” conduct is intended to be practiced, he’s picking and choosing instead of strictly following his beliefs. While he’s at it, he probably should be making sure it is a virgin / virgin weeding where no extra-marital conduct has occured.
Out of curiosity, what is deviant sexual conduct in monogamous marriage terms? My reading is that ‘anything goes, as long as both parties agree’ within the bounds of the marriage itself. No threesomes, for instance. No goats or elephants in the bedroom (“How does one make love to an elephant?” “Well, one makes love AT an elephant…” -John Varley)
Absolutely anything goes, as long as no animals or children are involved, and consent is clear. This was the point of the SCOTUS birth control/sodomy rulings.
And the fact that nobody being hurt was core to their rulings is why using the same privacy right to bootstrap abortion—where someone IS hurt— was just plain bad law.
See? I lernt me sumtin today. Iffn I hadn’t asked, I wouldna lernt
That was the legal answer. What about the Moral one?
General question, not just to Jack…
I suspect that everything right up to the rubber chicken gambit is morally okay, from my reading of the Book.
There is no moral answer that isn’t unethical. No authority has a right to tell two people how to have sex. Trying to do so is an abuse of authority.
I think this is a moderately absurd argument. Did the baker ask deeply personal questions about what will or will not occur after any such wedding…no…his objection is what he considers participation in the wedding itself via what he considers to be a endorsement by contributing his personal artistic talents to the ceremony.
But the baker cannot escape information being given to him to such a degree that DOES make him an endorser of what he considers to be a bridge to far on his conscience.
I agree with every sentence of this post. The “Safer Space Policy” is ridiculous. I have a better policy: “Don’t be an asshole.” I hate the term “virtue signaling,” but if it applies to anything, it’s this.
“Don’t be an asshole.” is SUCH an ethical policy.
Everything else is just commentary.
“Don’t be an asshole.”
Golden Rule, 2017 interpretation.
Dang, Chris. More common ground. We have to stop meeting like this!
Jack wrote: “However, the toxic effects on the culture by the two examples of intolerance and disdain for other citizens and human beings is exactly the same. Each is similarly mean-spirited, each is based on excessive self-righteousness, and each equally harms society, and the nation by elevating tribalism to standard practice. The theory of the coffee shop proprietor, I suppose—that the mere presence of a hat with initials on it is “unsafe” —-is marginally more outrageous and idiotic than the baker’s claim that selling a cake for a wedding he will not attend, is not invited to, that will never impose on his consciousness once the customers walk out the door unless his cake turns out to be poisoned, and that will take place whether he provides the cake or not, is a burden on his religious faith. Marginally. They both constitute unethical mistreatment of other human beings who deserve better, and breaches of the Golden Rule. That in both cases the victims of the unethical conduct may have intentionally presented themselves to be abused does not mitigate the abuse.”
My choice is to understand what is happening and why. For example, I see our present culture as having come into being in its present forms through social engineering projects and government collusion in them. For an example there is the forced integration issue. I think that one can find many such examples and one can notice that they are coercive efforts that are forced on people.
Similarly, so-called judicial activism is a sort of top-down imposition on the culture, generally conservative, of values which are determined to be necessary for the people to accept and adopt. In my view, our present in a large degree has been determined inorganically, if you will.
Another example is ‘multiculturalism’ as a doctrine and as an enforced policy. Another is the 1965 immigration reform act which was or which turned out to be a serious imposition on the cultural and social body of the country. It has and it is profoundly affecting the culture and the country itself —- legally! These can each be seen as grotesque violations of sovereigny. But what seems to happen is that the laws are changed to support the new policy, and who can argue with the law of the land? and yet the people did not really and truly wish these things.
Now, in the present we are observing, there is rising up a profound reaction to these hyper-liberal policy impositions. A whole structure has come into being under their aegis, and it will now begin to unravel.
Not only is this evident in the United States, but similar uprisings are occuring in different countries in Europe. It is reaction, rebellion, against social impositions of a hyper-liberal sort.
One argument against, say, multiculturalism, with the deliberate importation of foreign people who are unalike, racially and culturally, to the majority native population, is that it itself creates conflict. But it is not interpreted like that. When conflict arises blame is assigned to those who have an issue, or who are protecting their turf and space for example. All this noise comes from the hyper-liberals who use it to shame and blame those who do not wish to adapt to their social engineering project, to be the victim of it, to give in, to bow down.
Yet the same principle is involved with the deliberate effort to turn the country into a homosexual-tolerant land, or to teach, effectively, the gay life style as a viable option. Just one other choice, like a different flavor of ice cream, and to deliberately shame and villify those who resist this imposition. They are made to seem the evil ones and the full force of social shaming is brought to bear against them. The whole liberal establishment, quite broadly, uses shame as a tool. And the American Cuckservative is just as much their victim and patsy.
Thus, what are supposed to be actions of decent people, freely chosen, have become top-down impositions of value. And who orchestrates these impositions? Well, social engineers, American intelligence agencies in collusion with big business and other interests. Academics and other social influencers. See for example on YouTube E Michael Jones ‘The Slaughter of Cities’. I personally think that he makes many good points, and worthy ones. But his assertions have to do with covert policies and, sadly, indoctrinated Americans have tremendous fear in confronting the hidden and shadow power which is there, operating, monitoring, influencing.
Now, as it happens there are some people who have awoken to an understanding of what has been going on in the postwar period. They begin to understand this Liberal Enterprise differently than government and PR industry desires them to. They see differently from what they are instructed to see. I do not think this is so hard to comprehend and yet it seems that many people have a hard time taking it in. In any case, there now arise, out of the public social body, nationally and internationally, open reaction to and opposition to these projects of social engineering.
What I see happening in that, every day and with increasing intensity, we see the social glue coming undone. The former —- forced —- agreements have become unraveled. They unravel before our eyes. And this is as it should be. It is necessary that this happen. It is a consequence of the artificial nature of the social engineering. It is good that it is happening, and it must continue. I did not say that it will not be painful and have other consequences to. But it must happen. That much I am sure of.
If one only reads, say, the NY Times and other system media one will not come into contact much with the new movement that is gathering steam, except in a cartoon, villified representation. But it is there and it is real and powerful. And it is intelligent and quite sane. The New York Intellectual Establishment, and other cultural and commerce establishments, and the intelligence agencies of the deep state, are quite literally terrified which should be obvious by now to anyone with two yeses in their head, and so they should be. The implications are vast.
Therefor I do not necessarily judge or even oppose the Hyper Liberal freak-show-on-wheels who kicked out the fellows in the MAGA hats. And I support the artistic baker who seems quite a sensible person in his decision not to be forced to contribute his art-skill to the celebration of a gay marriage that should not ever be allowed in any polity, anywhere. (But some sort of union, recognized by law, should be available in my opinion, and this would be a sane compromise).
The political reaction by the Establishment makes perfect sense to me. I have seen some of my favorite websites deplatformed, their sources of income reduced by getting canned by PayPal, and also lawsuit leveled against certain activists (of the Right) simply for advocating for such causes as are important to them. I see this as a ‘natural’ consequence of the deep change that must begin to take shape.
This is where things have to go. The dissolving processes have to get worse. There is no way to simply patch things over. No more silly happy face and business and usual. These are ideological wars with consequences. And anyone who has read anything I have written on the subject of European Identity understands what I understand to be at stake.
“forced integration”
“Cuckservative”
It’s always nice when you let the mask slip.
Never let Alizia fool you into believing she is an intellectual, people. She is, like all racists and anti-gay bigots, an idiot.
No, Chris, you are the idiot. Someone ought to send that cop from the other thread after you and tell you to shut up on pain of death.
“If you say just one word, I will end you!”
“Oh?”
“That was one word,” ratatatatatatat!
See above, re: mask slipping.
Who’s wearing a mask? You hate me and I hate you right back. We have no common ground, and I would love nothing better to see people like you collapse a weeping mess and get five bullets in them. I think we should get a whole corps of cops like that and send them after antifa.
Glad you could find common ground with Alizia, Steve. You’re a noble defender of cuckoldry-obssesed segregationists against the hordes of people like me.
And your mask is the same as Alizia’s: that of an intelligent, rational, decent person. Then you reveal the asshole underneath.
You are, at heart, a violent dirtbag who wants people to the left of you to be murdered, while you defend actual white supremacists.
If you can’t control your hatred, you could at least direct it at a more worthy target.
And you, at heart, are a socialist piece of shit who has waaaaay too much time on his hands, and spends it sending little ditties about democratic talking points out into cyberspace and butting heads with those who won’t nod like bobbleheads at your supposed intelligence. Hordes? Hahahahaha, I don’t see hordes of idiots like you here.
Yes, those character flaws are much worse than wanting people who disagree with me shot by police or defending racial segregation. You got me.
Yep, you are one solid flaw.
As Ron burgundy would say, that escalated quickly.
What, Eternal Optometrist, you mean “I hope a cop shoots you” isn’t a rational response to someone calling a racist idiot a racist idiot?
I don’t think that’s a rational response to anything
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “I would love nothing better to see people like you collapse a weeping mess and get five bullets in them”
You Sir have again crossed well beyond the line.
How’s this any different than Stonekettle station’s unhinged rant about kicking alt-right people’s yellow teeth in and so forth?
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote , “How’s this any different than Stonekettle station’s unhinged rant about kicking alt-right people’s yellow teeth in and so forth?”
That’s an unethical rationalization.
What the heck is “Stonekettle station”?
It’s not about just disagreeing, Zoltar, with respect. It’s about disrespect and contempt. It’s about insults, which I’ve been the recipient of PLENTY of, especially from Chris and v-girl including “shithead,” “sack of shit” and worse. It’s about the support of the left for out and out violent stuff and justification of the cancer that is antifa. It’s about, I will admit, mere dislike of those who disagree with me in a contemptuous and sometimes hateful fashion blossoming into open hate.
Steve-O-in-NJ,
That’s a long list of rationalizations trying to justify your comment that is directly condoning violence.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to “speak” and to remove all doubt.
Steve, you are going to extraordinary efforts to remove all doubt.
Stonekettle is a website by a lefty former military guy guy named Jim Wright, who posted the following on fb:
“I keep trying to get to a point in this insanity where I can write a piece, but it’s all going sideways
So, instead, some observations:
– Fuck racist terrorists. This isn’t free speech. You don’t bring guns, clubs, torches, and shields to peaceful demonstration. This is terrorism. These people are terrorists. A car just plowed into a crowd of anti-racist protesters. I’ve watched the video. It was deliberate. It was attempted murder. This is terrorism and should be called such. So far as a I know, the terrorists have not been caught yet. Fuck those cowards.
– Fuck the Confederacy. Every symbol of the Confederacy, every monument, every flag, every statue, should be pulled down, uprooted, smashed into rubble, and burned. Fuck Robert E. Lee, he was a traitor, pull down his statue, melt it down, recast it into urinals. Piss on the Confederacy.
– Fuck Nazis. I don’t want to hear any social justice warrior bullshit about not confronting these racist shitbags with violence if necessary. They get punched in the head, they take a lead pipe over the skull, well it just plain sucks to be a Nazi. I’m not going to sugar coat that for you. Nazis are Nazis, they deserve nothing but a boot in their yellow teeth and punch in the throat. They’re getting off easy. Our grandfathers hunted Nazis down and EXTERMINATED them and it’s to our everlasting shame that we let this cancer regrow in our midst. Fuck Nazis.
– Fuck Trump. Trump owns this. Republicans own this. This isn’t the Alt-Right, this IS the right. These sons of bitches are literally shouting “Sieg Trump” in the streets of Charlottesville right now. Fuck Trump.
These people are the vile residue, the foul distillation, of every failed hateful rotten-tooth inbred ideology in history. Don’t let them hide. Don’t make excuses for them. Get them out in the open. Make them own it. They have jobs — some of them. They have parents and kids and neighbors. They have churches. The Constitution gives them a right to their hate, but not a right to be free of the consequences. Publish their pictures. Publish their license plates. Get them out in the open. Pull their hoods off. They’re standing out there shouting hate, flying the flag of treason, their arms upraised in the Hitler salute. Make them own it. Make them infamous. Don’t let them hide.”
I read that a while back and I just turned purple with rage. If the left is going to talk like that and advocate acting like that, I have zero problem with those of us on the right picking up the proverbial javelin and throwing it back at the other side.
More rationalizations?
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “If the left is going to talk like that and advocate acting like that, I have zero problem with those of us on the right picking up the proverbial javelin and throwing it back at the other side.”
Let me get this straight Steve; you seem to think that the rhetoric from the left deserves rhetorical consequences, I don’t disagree, but you seem to think that any form of rhetoric from any lefty in any situation justifies your hateful rhetoric here at Ethics Alarms that is literally condoning violence and in your twisted mind somehow their rhetoric deserves consequences but your rhetoric doesn’t deserve consequences? Steve you’re a hypocrite, you’re an idiot, and you’re a troll, and in my humble opinion you should be permanently banned for your rhetoric condoning violence.
I hope, I say I hope, that I never said that just any rhetoric from any lefty in any situation deserves actual violence. That is waaaay too close to a fascist state. That said, look at the history the left has created this year – riots, antifa, the thinking typified by Jim Wright’s rant above, and ah yes, that little Congressional shooting incident. I’ve said again and again that acting like that, and the talking that leads to that kind of actions or supports that kind of actions, is going to put us in Belfast/The Troubles territory. In those days the RUC, the UDL, and the RUC and UK military men caught trying to keep some kind of order all committed atrocities, sometimes to intimidate, sometimes to retaliate, but a good amount of the time because they became simply frustrated with the intractable nature of the situation and decided to take the shortcut of simple murder of the other side.
I admit that lately I have become increasingly more and more frustrated with my rhetoric falling on increasingly deaf ears on the left, and the left doing increasingly more extreme things. I have ratcheted the rhetoric up and up, and now it’s reached extremity. I never said I should be consequence free, and if there ARE consequences, I’ll take my medicine like a man.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “I hope, I say I hope, that I never said that just any rhetoric from any lefty in any situation deserves actual violence.”
Above you actually stated directly to Chris “I would love nothing better to see people like you collapse a weeping mess and get five bullets in them” simply because he had the gall to use the words “racists and anti-gay bigots” are idiots. I think that in a very real sense you’ve actually directly implied that “rhetoric from any lefty in any situation deserves actual violence”.
As for the rest of your comment; a buddy of mine is always saying that “excuses are like assholes, everyone’s got one and they all stink”, I think at this point that should be applied to your continuing rationalizations.
Your friend Jim Wright sounds like a complete nutjob, Steve-O; IOW, your typical SJW.
That’s a bad miscalculation, Steve. Rhetoric like that is self-refuting. Answering in kind just makes it less so.
You should feel honored, Chris, he specifically expressed a desire to see police execute YOU. He only suggested in a roundabout fashion that if he ever saw me he wanted to hit me with/without Rebar. So I guess he loves you best.
Oh wait, this is all reasonable because he learned in school that punching a playground bully is an effective tactic as a child, therefore… wishing to see someone who says things you don’t like on the internet murdered.
Nope, I think I am just headed toward becoming a rageaholic (just read the article on the signs). This is no good.
@Chris
It looks like Alizia has produced a rather detailed and thoughtful opinion on why the cumulative top-down imposition of “values” that are grudgingly (or just given lip-service as) accepted by a significant portion of a population, eventually will strain society (and should?) engender push-back. That idea could also apply to events of the 60’s, and beyond, that were often rebellions against conservative mores.
That she may operate from a different basic point of view than do you doesn’t make her a racist or bigot. Hers seems a much more intellectual effort than your response.
Willem,
Is this your first time encountering Alizia? If so, you should know that she is a hardcore believer in racial segregation, and believes that whites have some sort of sacred right to rule Europe and America.
That makes her a racist bigot. I hope you don’t disagree.
Europeans do, absolutely, have a ‘right’ to ‘rule Europe’. And so too does Japan have such a right. And any other place.
You will have to construct an argument, and present it, that proves that no such ‘right’ can be defended. I suggest that when you do that you will wind up in the indefensible territory of ‘multiculturalism’. You will find yourself quite specifically within the territory where ‘social engineering’ takes place. And you will show yourself within a structure of ideology that allows for the interference of intelligence agencies (state police) in collusion with business-interests, educational systems, and finally with science and medicine, in the construction of an unfree world.
When you toss into that mix the so-called Cultural Marxist activist, and then the governmental intelligence operative, and then the indoctrinated educator, and then the captain of business, a strange vision begins to take shape.
I will continue to speak to you as I speak to anyone, in calm, even tones, in the hope that someday even some small bit of it gets through to you.
Greater miracles have happened!
Europeans do, absolutely, have a ‘right’ to ‘rule Europe’.
And by Europeans, you mean whites.
I want to provide a visual sense of what European nationalism and the sort of activism I admire through a video. This is a talk given by Jayda Frensen and Britain First. I admire her a great deal but this does not mean that I suppost her policies. What I find interesting about her is that she represents a middle class, or a working class, activism. It is not really ideological but more visceral, and ‘of the social body’. You say you are a social justice warrior and this implies your values hinge in this area. In her way Jayda and BF demonstrate social activism and hold out for very definite forms of justice. It is worth seeing her, and understanding ‘where she is coming from’ so to be able to understand a popular rebellion to top-down imposition of values.
Clearly, the situation in the US is not comparable to Britain and I am not drawing a comparison, except in the sense of indicating that socially-engineered policies are now being not only questioned, but reacted against.
And this following video is equally interesting because it shows a newer inflow of women into the movement described as the New Right. Watching either of these vids will likely cause something to derail in your mind, so I expect you won’t, yet I recommend it, if only so that you can begin to understand the reactive activism of a counter-cultural Right. Hundred and thousands, maybe millions, of people are tuning in and beginning to consider alternative angles to the Hyper-Liberal distortions. And when (if) you listen to them you will discover that their concerns are real and their hearts are not, not at all, in a bad place.
Why can’t you just answer a straightforward question in an honest manner? I said, “And by Europeans, you mean whites.” You completely dodged the question, because you know the answer to that question is “Yes.” You instead appeal to authorities most normal people have never heard of to give yourself the veneer of intellectualism; people shouldn’t need to look these people up to have a conversation with you. I know all about Frensen and the horrendously bigoted “Britain First.” That these are your intellectual guiding lights prove my point: you’re a racist moron. Your ideas are inherently uncivil, and deserving of zero respect.
I think Alizia has decided wisely not to take your question for bait. She is “white,” as far as I can tell from her gravatar (if that’s her), and obviously, the peoples on the European landmass are still predominantly what we would probably both call “white”…but, I sense in Alizia’s advocacy something cultural or ethnic that is not necessarily tied to a particular skin pigmentation level deemed a “clincher” for a certain race. Again, of course, “white” people may be traced historically to establishing, and thriving amidst, that culture or ethnicity of which she speaks – but still, I read her as an advocate for an ethnic European way that transcends some “purely” racial European bloodline.
Then you’re reading her wrong, and you don’t know her history here.
You completely dodged the question, because you know the answer to that question is “Yes.” You instead appeal to authorities most normal people have never heard of to give yourself the veneer of intellectualism; people shouldn’t need to look these people up to have a conversation with you. I know all about Frensen and the horrendously bigoted “Britain First.” That these are your intellectual guiding lights prove my point: you’re a racist moron. Your ideas are inherently uncivil, and deserving of zero respect.
There was and is no need to ‘answer’ your question, silly, because it was a set-up! I am completely and 100% committed to Europe as ethnically white. And of course European people have a right to define themselves in those terms, and to maintain their integrity. It’s you that has the problem with that!
And the purpose of putting up the Britain First video is to show ‘normal people’ who are reacting against harmful demographic policies. I atttempt to show people reacting against social engineering by elites. It was for descriptive purposes, as illustration. I completley support them, but in a sense that is irrelevant —- except of course to you as moral policeman!
My ‘guiding light’ is not so much people or any specific person but a clarification of values in the face of forced value-sets. I understand that you value things differently, but in no sense are your values of a higher order. Not at all! In fact, I would suggest that your values are shallow and also destructive. (And when I say ‘your values’ I mean in this case that you seem to support demographic policies that will in short time eliminate the white population in Britain, which is what Britain First, in their crude and direct way, is advocating against. You make that into a criminal activity in fact and describe your advocacy as ‘ethical’. It is not.
Certainly they have a right not to be ruled by Muslims and Islam, and that is what Britain First advocates to reverse. Jayda Fransen —- the horrible bigot —- is in jail now and faces prison time for expressing her views. The video here below is of another woman activist with a gripping tale to tell.
To me, her conversation seems more nuanced than that, although I admit I sometimes don’t feel like devoting the mental energy needed to completely decipher her posts.
Still, yelling “Racist, Bigot!” is not a logical disputation, just a display of the ad hominem fallacy.
You have, I am sure unintentionally, triggered the dread “False Ad Hominem Accusation Protocol.” From the Comments policies (ABOVE)
“13. DO NOT accuse me of an ad hominem attack if I judge your intellectual prowess or ethical proclivities based on the quality your post, and state that judgment. That’s not what an ad hominem attack is, and I’m sick of explaining it.”
Now, it’s true I didn’t forbid mistakenly accusing OTHERS of this, but this error, like the use of the “77 cents for every dollar” false gender pay gap stat and “50% of all marriages end in divorce” and a few others, REQUIRE me, by solemn pledge, to write, “NO NO NO NO!”
Yelling Racist! Bigot! as a response to someone being judged to have said something only racists or bigots would say or think is NOT NOT NOT “ad hominem.” It is a conclusion, or a diagnosis, based on prior evidence.
The ad hominem fallacy is when someone says, “You are a racist and a bigot, so your argument is wrong.” Since the argument is right or wrong independent of who makes it, this is either a false argument, or a dishonest one. However, “You argument proves you are a racist and a bigot” is not ad hominem. It may or may not be fair, but the assessment of the argument came first, leading to the label. When the label copmes first to discredit the argument, THAT’S “ad hominem.”
Got it?
Proceed.
Yelling Racist! Bigot! as a response to someone being judged to have said something only racists or bigots would say or think is NOT NOT NOT “ad hominem.” It is a conclusion, or a diagnosis, based on prior evidence.
Exactly, Jack. Thank you.
@Jack,
‘…The ad hominem fallacy is when someone says, “You are a racist and a bigot, so your argument is wrong…”’
Sorry, perhaps I didn’t elaborate sufficiently in my previous post. I know, as you say, what constitutes an “ad hominem” as a logical fallacy, I just assumed the second half was evident in this case and didn’t need to be stated.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but it appears to me that Chris’ argument for dismissing the ideas offered by Alizia in her original post, and my comment about how I interpreted them, was to make his accusations about her status as a “bad person”. I don’t see that he countered with any thoughtful refutation of the points in her original commentary, so it appeared that he was, in effect, stating “She is a racist and a bigot, so her argument is wrong.”.
Thanks for clarifying.
But it wasn’t “You are a racist and a bigot, so your argument is wrong.” It was “You are a racist and a bigot, and racism and bigotry is wrong.”
It would be an ad hom if Alizia was making an argument about something else totally unrelated to racism and bigotry here, and I called her a racist bigot. I don’t do that on the occasions when her posts don’t contain racist and bigoted content. When they do, I’m going to call that out.
Alizia’s arguments here include arguing that racial segregation is good and that we’ve been forced to accept integration by an international cabal of Jews. It isn’t ad hominem to call such arguments what they are. I suppose I could go further and explain why such arguments are wrong, but I trust no one here needs me to do that.
I do not think that distinctions made about or in relation to race are necessarily ‘wrong’ in the moral sense you mean. It seems more true to me that those who are now thinking and speaking in race realist terms are not doing so because of what you see as race hatred, but in fact for other reasons. For just one example there is a demographic concern, that is, of shrinking numbers of Whites. The fact of the matter is that a white nationalist perspective is completely defensible ethically, though it cannot be said to be non-problematic. In order to understand the perspective one has to seek it out and consider it. I have.
As per usual, Dearest Chris, you restate and rephrase what I say and doing so turn it into something different. I mentioned the social engineering of forced busing to illustrate a larger point which is of top-down social engineering. The point was to allude to such polcies and to point out that, as now, the forced policies, because they are not organic (or perhaps I should say not voluntary and chosen), that they do not hold and begin to unravel. My theory of the present, in America, has to do with social agreements coming undone, and for the reasons I describe. It is not simple and requires a good deal of careful description. There is nothing unethical in understanding what is happening, and nothing unethical necessarily in understanding that they must come undone. For larger ethical reasons perhaps I might suggest.
The ‘I trust no one needs me to do that’ (‘explain why such arguments are wrong) is an appeal to a group with a tacit threat. You trust that your view of things is the right one, ordained by God. And your ‘argument’ is based in shaming and threats, just as were the social engineering policies themselves. That was and that is of course the bulk of my point.
Your tactics, Chris, do indeed work to keep people muzzled. People like you use those tactics on news shows, in discussion groups, on forums, and in general discourse. You can terrify people to voice their real opinions and ideas about things; you can also dox them, bring social media to bear against them, do financial harm to them; you can do many things. But there will come a time when people, generally, will stop putting up with it. They will see through it. And they will then return to the ethical defense of their own ideas, their own sense of things.
That is where I come in and *we* come in. Or ideas are fair, thoughtful, necessary, ethical and powerful. And on the strennth of well-grounded ideas we will continue to gain ground.
@Chris,
Well, if your assertion now is that you never intended to debate or refute Alizia’s initial post, but merely to call her names, then I withdraw my claim that you committed a logical fallacy. That’s still ad hominem (against the man) attacks, of course, but not the “argumentum ad hominem” failure in proof.
Even so, I don’t see where, in her first post, she praised racial segregation or mentioned a cabal of Jews. That post, I think, is her only one on which I’ve commented. I’ll repeat that my impression was that the gist of her particular commentary there was to opine on “…why the cumulative top-down imposition of “values” that are grudgingly (or just given lip-service as) accepted by a significant portion of a population, eventually will strain society and (should?) engender push-back.” Could she not have interesting, even valid, points in that analysis, no matter what other flaws exist in her character, or what the subject matter is?
.
Willem,
Now that Alizia has explicitly self-identified as a “white nationalist,” and said “I am completely and 100% committed to Europe as ethnically white,” will you stop giving her the benefit of the doubt?
I don’t mind anyone not reading or understanding Alizia’s posts completely, as no god or man could judge anyone for that. Like I said, I skim them half the time myself. But then why the defensiveness on her behalf whenever someone credibly accuses her of making racist arguments? “I have no idea what she’s saying, but she’s definitely not a racist” is not a compelling argument.
Is there confusion over whether white nationalism is a racist position? Do you not know what this term means or what these people believe? I do. Stop telling me Alizia’s words don’t mean what everyone informed on this subject knows they mean.
Why is ‘white nationalism’ a racist argument? Please elaborate.
I think “white nationalism” is inherently racist.
I just find knee jerk progressives protesting it as a problem in America somewhat laughable. I mean, the same knee jerk progressives have been completely silent on topics like “black nationalism”, where people like Louis Farrakhan can attract crowds of thousands of supporters, many prominent Leftists, but suddenly splinter fringe movements like that imbecile Richard Spencer and crew attract a crowd of a couple hundred (2/3rds of which are journalists), and suddenly the hyperventilation occurs.
I guess it is an aspect of my fate to have to respond to Chris. I must say I really do not mind the opposition I receive. I only wish that it were of a higher caliber.
You have determined, imperiously in my view (and that of the movement here in the US, in Europe and also in Australia, Canada and the English-speaking countries) that to advocate for white identity in politics, or to limit immigration, and even to democratically advocate for a reversal of destructive immigration policies which result in altering the demographic of any given country, is necessarily and facially ‘wrong’. When you seek to oppose what you see as wrong (or bigoted or racist) in point of fact you do not argue for nor against what you value, but you assume your view to require no defense, no explanation.
I seek to point out, and I am certain that I can do this successfully and convincingly, that there is a great deal of important nuance to this question. And that resistance to the post-Sixties policies which I understand as a collusion between government, big business, the cultural directors, the education systems, and with Hollywood is now showing itself and is now gaining power. Not only in the US but —- and in a sense more importantly for reasons I can describe —- in Europe. But the first order of business, and so it seems to me, is defining the ‘problem’. The original post which has led to this present discussion broached that topic. It is an important one and, so far, you have made yourself no part of it.
You have said many times that you do not read my posts. To me this is not only incredibly weird but I think illustrative of a failure and a fault in your analytical methodolgy. I mean you-plural and in the sense that you are allied with Left radicalism, hyper-progressivism. Unlike you I have read, in great depth, all the main figures who provide the ideological foundation of the Progressive Left. But you-plural and you specifically block up your ears and refuse to listen, to understand. The result is that when you speak, when you attempt to encapsulate your opponent’s position, what comes out of your mouth is a comical cartoon-like mischaracterization! Yet this is intentional, not inadvertent! That is what you desire to do and indeed to support your artificial worldpicture, and the picture of yourself in it, you have to distort facts.
I recommend that you modify your analytical tactics.
When I make a ‘defense’ of myself, or of the position I ally with, I do so only through sound counter-argument. All that you do is to use certain key phrases, certain inglorious rhetorical terms, that you hurl in my direction as brands. Then you appeal to the audience and dare them to defend me (or our position) against your mischaracterization. This is a game, Chris, and a rather transparent one. But what is more important here is that this *game* is being played on a national scale now. I wonder if you even see the point I am making.
In order to understand my position, even if you or anyone will finally determine that they do not agree with them at any level, they must be received, thought on, and responded to with good counter-argument.
Now I return to the original premise: Britain First and Jayda Fransen et al give evidence of a visceral reaction to top-down policy impositions which the ‘British people’ now begin to feel as and to describe as a negative and destructive imposition on their cultural and their social body (ie racial and cultural composition) and they begin to activate against this imposition. I said that I did not support, necessarily, their policy choices (forcing their way into mosques for example or intimidating people in the street) but that I do support the right of indigenous people, in their own lands, to have a strong and determining say in what occurs in their lands.
What I say is, of course, very different from what you say I say. It is exhausting, and yet fun and welcome! to be forced to counter-argue against your cartoon representations. You provoke genuine intellectual reaction and that is a good thing. If I am not in error I think this is what the blog is about.
You have to understand that to progressives, minorities cannot be racist. It no longer fits their definition of the term.
The late reaction to being told that being white is an original sin, that nothing can change that, and we are even thinking of making it a crime (with executions) has had the predictable result of whites banding together for mutual support and protection against the threats. Why is this unacceptable to progressives?
For the same reason Jews banding together for mutual support is unacceptable to Nazis.
You have to understand that to progressives, minorities cannot be racist. It no longer fits their definition of the term.
This is true of many progressives. It is not true of me.
The late reaction to being told that being white is an original sin, that nothing can change that, and we are even thinking of making it a crime (with executions) has had the predictable result of whites banding together for mutual support and protection against the threats. Why is this unacceptable to progressives?
Some of the “threats” white nationalists say they oppose:
Commercials featuring Interracial couples
People of color being cast in Star Wars movies
Bus seats
All of these things have been described by white nationalists as “white genocide.”
But sure, these are just normal people supporting themselves against the brown hordes.
This is true of many progressives. It is not true of me.
For the record, this is true of Chris.
” I said that I did not support, necessarily, their policy choices (forcing their way into mosques for example or intimidating people in the street) but that I do support the right of indigenous people, in their own lands, to have a strong and determining say in what occurs in their lands.”
That’s pretty much in a nutshell the thesis statement of her posts today, I think.
Thanks for the defense, Jack. (At least I think it was a defense. You did mean that my statement was true, right? I almost read it more in a “Ron Howard narrator voice,” but I hope that’s not how you meant it. I really do believe minorities can be racist against whites.)
Right.
How do you know I’m NOT Ron Howard?
*Ron Howard voice*
He was not Ron Howard.
OK, I think I’ve traced the startling deterioration of civility on this thread to Chris’s comment. Not that this excuses everyone else following him, which eventually involved…let’s see..I guess it basically boiled down to Steve and Chris. No surprise there. Much thanks to Luke, Eternal Optometrist and Willem for trying to get the discussion back on track and the shivs put away.,
Jeez, I leave to eat dinner, and return to this…
See there’s your problem, you stopped to eat. We can all chip in and buy you a nice IV drip so you don’t have to take nutrient breaks 😀
What we witnessed was a bit of Chris’ trolling that lacked of any kind of intellectual reply to the content of the comment and Steve-O-in-NJ returned the with his totally unacceptable version of trolling.
We could just employ the Julie Principle and say that Chris and Steve-O-in-NJ are both idiots and they don’t know any better so we accept them, faults and all; however, I think Steve-O-in-NJ has crossed this particular line too many times.
What, because I come back harder at idiots than they expect? I have been here less and less and avoided some threads altogether precisely because of Chris’ dysentery of the keyboard and inability to leave a subject or not have the last word. It’s times like this I wish SMP was still around to help rough up those who litter this blog with junk and put them in their place.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “What, because I come back harder at idiots than they expect?”
No you damn fool; it’s because your trolling rhetoric is openly condoning violent acts against those whose opinion you oppose. You’ve gone well beyond just being an asshole.
Steve, I’m really hard on people, including Chris, but you will never, never ever, see me condoning violent acts against those whom I simply disagree with. I know what line not to cross, you’re too damned stupid to understand that line. You are wrong and I think your repeated violent rhetoric has earned being banned.
Stupid? Hardly. Just blinded with anger, which I will admit.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “Stupid? Hardly. Just blinded with anger, which I will admit.”
Being “blinded with anger” is a verifiable pattern for you, you know it exists and yet you do nothing to change it; therefore, allowing your anger to repetitively blind you is stupid.
There’s no point in reasoning with him, at this point. I tried a few days ago, coming from me as someone who likewise had angry rant issues here and brought them under control. Steve-O has convinced himself that others’ sins are unconscionable and irredeemable (he referenced my own past burst of vitriol that closed with “Fuck you!” as an “unhinged rant,” going so far as to claim he feared he would need to physically defend himself if we ever ended up in the same room). Meanwhile his own repeated assertions that physical violence is an accepted response to any number of offenses, and periodic specific wishes of harm on other commenters here (played out in this instance with added gunshot sound effects) are explained away as mere “anger,” and thoroughly rationalized by the actions of a nebulous cloud of left-wing wrongdoers.
I adhere to Ken White’s “It’s My Living Room” policy at Popehat and generally refrain from calling for a blogger to ban/unban anybody, but I can definitely say that Steve-O’s violent fantasies are contributing nothing and I intend to ignore them from here on. Even Chris (who I generally disagree with on nearly all policies and positions, by the way- he probably even likes the wrong flavor of ice cream 😀 ) at his most determined and dogmatic, illustrates a policy-based mindset and allows me to consider the arguments and how I would respond to them, or if any part of them is enough to change any part of my own opinions. “That guy should get beaten down” and “I want you to be murdered” do nothing of the kind.
Thank you, Luke.
But if you don’t like Ben & Jerry’s Americone Dream, you don’t like America and should be sent to a gulag. 😉
If I have to stop this car, I swear to Christ……
That threat only works decently if you have proven track record of actually stopping the car and smacking the shit outta someone. 😉
Yeah, when one of our youngsters is being disobedient, all I have to say is “we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way”, they fall in line. Because they know there IS a hard way, and it is NOT pleasant.
Best part is, you only have to be consistent once or twice, early on, and the reminder is sufficient.
Please explain this to my wife. Thus far, my efforts to get her to abandon her Milquetoast approach to discipline have fallen on deaf ears.
How I solved the ‘kids won’t try a new food’ problem all parents come across: “This is the NEXT thing you eat in your entire life. I don’t care if it is for breakfast, lunch or a midnight snack, but THIS is what you are eating next.”
Only happened a few times (son ate broccoli for breakfast once) and they believed I was serious. Now we have the ‘No Thank You Portion’ (a taste to show the open mind and thanks to the cook) that keeps family peace. And low and behold! The kids have found that they like all manner of strange calories, like cooked carrots, mushrooms, black olives, and ‘Pseudo’ Shepard’s Pie combinations, including a new found acceptance for beef stew!
“How I solved the ‘kids won’t try a new food’ problem all parents come across: “This is the NEXT thing you eat in your entire life. I don’t care if it is for breakfast, lunch or a midnight snack, but THIS is what you are eating next.”
I wish I could get all the adults onboard with this. I KNOW I’d have similar success.
You think I won’t?! YOU THINK I WON’T STOP THIS CAR?!?
Just you wait till I stop this car!
We could not spank the kids in the store, but they came to know that the hammer would fall in private. We got far fewer meltdowns in public once the toddler knew we would drop everything, leave the store, and administer the low justice promptly.
Trace it back one further, Jack. Alizia—once again—said that the races shouldn’t mix and that you are all the equivalent of cuckolds for being ok with the races mixing. That isn’t civil. It’s racist idiocy, and there’s nothing wrong with calling it that. As Alizia has made this worldview crucial to her identity, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that she is a racist idiot every time she expresses this worldview.
I don’t know why this bothers people, or why Steve was so triggered by it that he felt the need to gleefully wish for my death. But it’s wrong to equate my behavior with his, or even Alizia’s, neither of whom I wish dead.
Chris, I assure you, I wasn’t making equivalencies, just investigating. All of a sudden I go on my own blog and people are exchanging insults without substance. I just tracked the thread back to the first insult, that’s all. The match isn’t equivalent to the forest fire: your comment shouldn’t have been a catalyst for violence.
Alizia is always civil; she just holds some unpopular and, I would say, ugly positions.
He didn’t equate yours with Steve’s.
He said you initiated the spiral into incivility.
That’s what he said.
Chris writes: “Trace it back one further, Jack. Alizia—once again—said that the races shouldn’t mix and that you are all the equivalent of cuckolds for being ok with the races mixing. That isn’t civil. It’s racist idiocy, and there’s nothing wrong with calling it that. As Alizia has made this worldview crucial to her identity, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that she is a racist idiot every time she expresses this worldview.”
Yet in fact what I said, and what I say, and also what *we* say (that is, people who share my perspectives) is not what you say we say. What I wish to point out to you is that you, and the Left of course, reframe things always into the worst light possible. And in doing so you distort what is being said. Now distorting what people say is a dirty and underhanded tactic and should be avoided. But more important than my complaining of this is to take into account that it is exactly this that is the most common feature within journalism, on social media, in forums and blogs today: the deliberate misstatement.
I also wish to point out that you have, deliberately and over a number of posts, steered the conversation into that of the hot topic of race or white identity politcs. I have not brought up these things and I have also determined that such a conversation, here, is not fruitful.
But what is more interesting, and I will keep suggesting that you try also to keep your focus there, is to gain a better sense of why these conflicts are coming up, and what is the cause of them. So, instead of reacting hysterically, and trying to rally partisans to your side, take advantage of the larger, encompassing perspectives I attempt to present.
I acknowledge that I have controversial ideas. If you wish to see them as horrid, or evil, or as Jack says ‘ugly’, I honestly respect your opinion. I will never say that you or anyone else cannot do that. I will not oppose you in doing so. But what I will do is retreat, organize my ideas, get them ordered in my own mind until I can present them coherently. The other necessity is to be able to present ideas that are justifiable in ethical (and moral) terms. If it cannot be supported ethically and morally it must be modified.
(As you see I avoid completely anything else said by anyone else. It is not my business nor my interest).
In my view it is an improper tactic of argumentation to make a mass-appeal to the forum, as you have done here, since your intention os to prejudice someone’s interpretation of what I write. To put a spin on it that you can control. I hope that you will notice that this shows a degeneration of the possibility of good discussion. True, the Left right now is going to the extremes of bad argumentation and taking it to a point that is almost incredible, but I think the Right is also similarly guilty. But these are all symptoms of the dissolution of social and cultural agreements, as I attempted to express above.
It is all beginning to unravel and it will not simply be patched-up. There are certain events, though, that could inhibit dissolution. A war, a social crisis, a terror-event of significant proportion. There are ways and means to bring about false-unity, I suppose. But the general trend is as I say. And the better that this is understood the better one will be able to prepare for what is to come.
You think I am ‘evil’ because 1) I notice this and bring it to your attention, and 2) because you notice (because I openly say it) that I am a Eurocentric and a White Identity activist. The second is, in your estimation, facial evidence of evil. And this offers a description of and the internal logic of your position vis-a-vis me. All I can suggest to you is to use *me* as an opportunity to come to better understanding of movements in ideas, here and in Europe, which will show themselves more and more as time marches on. If you would/could stop reacting in cartoon manner to ideas that you have been trained to see as repellant and *evil*, you would be in a better position to more clearly see the surrounding landscape.
I want you to gain as much from me as I gain from witnessing your *displays* and the circus of emoted illogic that best defines your discourse (quote/unquote).
It seems to me fundamentally unfair that I get all the benefit of gain and you are left in the boneyard picking at your scabs like old Job!
I too am a social justice warrior of sorts and by Heaven I want to see you win once in a while!
Alizia: LOL look at those cucks sitting at an integrated lunch counter
Also Alizia: Wow my arguments are so much more logical and less emotional than yours
Is she wrong?
Yes. Obviously.
Who raised you, that you don’t understand that opposing integration and calling people who support integration “cuckolds” is wrong?
Insulting a man’s upbringing and his parents.
Winning arguments.
…and making pals.
I do not need to make an “argument” for why opposing integration is wrong. The argument has been had, the argument is over, and the racists lost. At this point, insulting those who still don’t get this is justified, and a rational response.
Yeah, too bad you didn’t insult Joed. You ridiculed his parents and upbringing.
Well done, sir, well done!
Or am I getting this wrong? Maybe you were being funny…like that time your words most plainly read as fat-shaming Sarah Huckabee Sanders and then you pretended like it was our faulty interpretation of those words?
Don’t be an asshole. I acknowledged that it was my lack of clarity and poor writing of the joke that may have led you to believe it was a fat joke. (You hadn’t even made it clear that you read it that way; my apology and admission of error was preemptive.) I did not “pretend” anything. My second comment, which came before your response, adds further context that supports the fact my joke was about Sanders being Southern:
I just don’t even understand how any liberal thinks this is a convincing argument. She’s a stereotype of a caricature of a parody of a Southern woman! Of course girl knows how to bake a fucking pie! This is brain-poison!
But as I said, I should have written the original comment better.
My remark about joe’s upbringing was a way to get him to realize that his views were incorrigible. I stand by it.
“Don’t be an asshole.”
Eat your own medicine.
“My remark about joe’s upbringing was a way to get him to realize that his views were incorrigible. I stand by it.”
Suit yourself. Don’t say you weren’t alerted to the likely failure of such a tack.
Chris wrote, “insulting those who still don’t get this is justified, and a rational response.”
Chris,
Who doesn’t get this Chris? Joed68 asked you a question because the comment he replied to, yours, wasn’t exactly clear about what he asked. So as it is Chris, you insulted the person asking a question and that person’s parents, you didn’t in fact insult a person that “still don’t get this”; therefore, your insults weren’t justified and thus not rational.
Your trolling was wrong on multiple levels.
“My remark about joe’s upbringing was a way to get him to realize that his views were incorrigible. I stand by it.”
But I don’t see it this way. Looks like you failed.Better luck next time.
Why do you continue to give her oxygen?
I have my theories. I can’t be sure of them, but I have a handful.
I love a good history podcast, and I foolishly made the mistake of thinking that I’d get additional value out of those podcasters by following their twitter accounts. Unfortunately, many of them are lock step progressives like our friend Chris here. To a T, they ALL spend their twitter time finding little Richard Spencer lite guys and heap nothing but vitriol on them and engage them in expansive discussions as though the only alternative to their Leftist worldview is “Spencerist Revision”.
I’ve never understood their neurosis and I’ve lost respect for all of them because they lack perspective and proportion. I almost wonder if they like hitting the low hanging fruit because it is easy.
Personally, I don’t read Alizia’s screeds because for every one of them that makes a seemingly thought out argument, there are 10 more that ramble on with Sociology 201 and Philosophy 301 buzzwords without ever actually getting to a point.
But for engaging her in the manner that Chris does… it seems… well empty and self-serving.
I don’t understand it.
I mean…. It would be one thing to hit low hanging fruit when it’s easy, but it’s like the people arguing with Alizia are showing up to a gun fight armed with a toothpick. I have no doubt that Alizia is sometimes wrong, and that Chris is sometimes right, but I have no proof of this because Alizia writes circles around Chris. I’m convinced that he doesn’t read her posts, at least not with any measure of comprehension, and then he ends up hurling some kind of ad hominem at her and plays pigeon chess.
I mean… I get it, I spend a fair amount of time writing posts on the internet, but the novels she writes are simply beyond the pale, not just in length or in extravagance, but I’m also fairly certain that some of the time she just puts 1900’s era books through a gibberish generator and copy/pastes the outcome. I don’t have time to decode her posts into something approximating a cogent argument, and quite frankly, I shouldn’t have to make someone else’s point digestible. I’m not your English 401 prof, grading a dissertation. I have neither the inclination or the time.
So let her barf words into the ether, literally no one reads them.
“…literally no one reads them.”
I read them… if I have the time. I am here to understand what, and how, other people think. My corner of our country is rural conservative, for the most part, and such investigation cannot be done here.
I also read and try to understand where Chris comes from. And HT for the Canadian viewpoint. And so on.
How will we ever come to consensus if we do not understand other’s views and motivations?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m more than willing to interact with people who don’t think like I do, and I’ll even try to make adjustments for the cultures I happen to be interacting with.
But when faced with walls of text, some of which I’m convinced are meaningless ramblings, and there only being so much time in a day, I feel like it’s necessary to do some kind of Intellectual triage, and Alizia was an easy cut.
As an exercise… Ctrl-F for “(2)”, at the time of this post, there are three instances of “(2)” in this comment section, one from Alizia and two from lucky, posted in that order.
Alizia’s comment is:
“I refer to the term ‘social engineering’ in a later context. Largely postwar (2) and as collusion between government, business and the intelligence agencies.”
That “(2)”, looks like a citation marker…. There’s no previous comment it could refer to, and it makes no sense for the number two to be in that sentence in context…. Except there is no “(1)”, and the “(2)” doesn’t actually cite anything. I believe that she is copying something from somewhere else…. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether you think it was fed through a gibberish generator first.
Humble,
The problem is that, as you can see, Alizia does have a few defenders on this blog, joe and Willem, both of whom should know better.
Now maybe they don’t read all of her posts either, because if they were to do so, they could easily see that she is an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, and a white nationalist. But really, I skim most of her posts, and that is still obvious to me. All it takes is looking at a few key words. In the comments here, I see “forced integration,” “Cuckservative,” and “Holocaust controversy.” These are not words intelligent people use without irony.
I don’t want to see otherwise intelligent people defending the arguments of Holocaust deniers. I realize that Alizia’s posts are hard to read and even harder to understand, but Joe and Willem need to be aware of just what they’re standing up for.
You, my esteemed Humble Talent, do not like the content of my speech and the real reason you feel distain is for that reason. The same is true for Chris. It is also a fact that many others do not like the content of my speech including Jack who yet tolerates my contributions for high-minded reasons. I have understood this since the beginning.
However, that said, my position here is shaky and though I do not have ANY doubts about the validity of my ideas, even the most controversial, nor doubt that I can defend them in ethical and moral terms. I will do this anywhere and with anyone and at any time. But I am, despite appearances, concerned for the space of the Blog itself. So, I am not unconcerned about what people think of my content. I have listened and I do listen to all criticism. But really there is none offered. Chris’s entire approach is only through ad hominem despite the truth in the statement that calling a litterer a litterer is not ad hominem but a description of a true fact. Chris though is completely and 100% devious in his approach to dealing with my ideas. And this is also true, to varying degrees, within a specific American context, at least right now, at this moment. The sort of reaction that I get here is not different in kind from that of, say, an Antifa activist. You-plural can only see me (my ideas) in the darkest most reprehensible terms. And it is necessary that the label that has been attached to me is maintained. That is why Chris is working hard to shame other people from being open to any particular aspect of what I think and write. And this is entirely to be expected within the ethical framework you-plural and many people operate with. I accept and I understand this … and I beg to differ.
Therefor I suggest that I can be of use in bringing to your-plural attention ideas and discourse that you might not be familiar with. That is, movements of people here and in Europe that are advocating for ‘white identity politics’, against globalist machinations, and also specifically for white nationalism. I am a white nationalist. And I do have thoughts and ideas about race and culture that run —- apparently quite a bit —- contrary to that of many, and this is certainly so in the social context of the US. There are thousands and millions of people like me that are beginning to think in these terms whether any one of you likes it, hates it, fears it, holds it in contempt, whatever.
We are here and we are here to stay. I know, and you should know this too, that the national police are very concerned about us and also *this*: this movement of ideas. I know and you should know that there will be and there is now a sort of covert intelligence war brought our against us. This is very very serious business. That is my opinion. I understand what is at stake. And you should as well.
It has always been my stated position that I can be tossed out of here. That is, that I will not argue or oppose it. I say that because I respect the blog and the parameters that it operates with, and then of course the general politics of those who write here.
Now, HT, if there is any part of this that you did not understand just let me know! 😉
I’m going to break my own personal rule, just this once, because you are functioning under a serious misconception.
“You, my esteemed Humble Talent, do not like the content of my speech and the real reason you feel distain is for that reason.”
Not true. The reason I don’t like your posts is because I have no idea under God what the hell they’re about half the time. Not knowing what they’re about, I could not possibly have an opinion on the content of those posts. Everything following that original misconception is noise.
Sure, and that was true way back then. I remember it well: ‘Speak in terms I can understand of get bent!’ I had never heard that phrase before and it stuck with me.
I have read many of your posts and often still do. I certainly will not say that I do not understand them, but you don’t in any sense deal in ‘ideas’, just a running commentary on passing phenomena. If I am incomprehensible to you, I hope you will not mind if I say you are irrelevant to me.
But no matter. Thanks for your comment!
…I have no idea under God what the hell they’re about half the time.
But wait! That leaves at least 50%. So, just focus on what you do understand and, when needed, ask for clarification on the rest.
I’m here to help.
Trust my summaries, Humble Talent. Her posts are about white separatism. That’s all you need to know.
“I read them… if I have the time.”
I read them too, and for what it’s worth I don’t think she’s “baffling with bullshit”, but trying to very carefully articulate what she knows are very controversial points of view, in the hope that people will take the time to try to understand where she’s coming from. Given that there is a lot that could be easily misinterpreted, it would probably be difficult to package a Cliffnotes version without immediately alienating her audience, but unfortunately, it seems that people may not be making the effort to decrypt it all and it’s happening anyway.
Funny you should ask. I ran away at age 12, and lived in the woods until I joined the navy at 17. I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy quite a few times during that period, and I sort of “adopted” Gandalf the Grey as my “father”. My real dad was an animal, so I got my moral and ethical compass from Gandalf.
Your mind seems to be like one of those “function machines” from calculus, where certain words go in one end, trigger an autonomic response that dumps cortisol, epinephrine, oxytocin, and prolactin into your bloodstream, and words like racist, bigot, and Nazi come out the other end. That’s really too bad. As I mentioned before, it’s obvious that at least Alizia comes by her views after long, careful deliberation, and you could doubtlessly learn from her, even if it only serves to solidify your own views ultimately. Among other things, she seems to have a pretty good grasp of how large groups of people are being manipulated by smaller groups of people whose motives seem less than pure.
Or, you can just keep reacting.
Why haven’t you written a book? I’ll buy my copy in advance.
Ha! I’m still working on a happy ending. If I ever do write it, the first copy is yours.
I don’t think her position is exactly as you characterize it, nor do I think her opposition to what she perceives as a sort of forced cultural engineering is a result of her hatred of “others”.
How did I guess that yours would be the first response to this, and it would contain baseless insults (she’s far from an idiot, and you know it.) and one or two liberal-weaponized words that I seriously doubt have the desired effect on her? I’m not sure how much of what she has to say I agree with, but at least she’s obviously arrived at her positions after careful consideration, rather than being just another lock-step ideologue that mistakes their social conditioning for self-cultivated wisdom.
I just commented to Alizia, and now repeating:
May your comments on EA be numerous in the new year!
I hope to, brother. My writing ability is on the mend. In addition to finally getting off of a med that was sapping my cognitive capacity, I just got diagnosed with severe complex sleep apnea. It turns out that my breathing was stopping an average of 40 times per hour, and I was incapable of falling into deep sleep or sleeping for more than an hour straight, if you could call it sleep. Among a whole slew of other symptoms, I couldn’t concentrate, could barely think,and my memory was completely shot. School was all but impossible. Now I’m on BiPAP and sleeping 9 hours a night!I thought I was slipping into early senility, but I just needed to sleep and breathe.
Ho. ly. CRAP! That is BAD sleep apnea. (I use a CPAP machine, so I understand.) I hope your treatment will continue to work for you.
Mostly centrals, too. Feeling SO much better!
Wow what a mess; glad you’re finally on the mend.
Thanks, Zoltar! Yes, this wobbly nightmare seems to be drawing to a close. I just might be able to start effectively communicating here!
Alizia,
The founding fathers designed the United States to provide a foundation to build a free society upon, a society that is based on laws and rights, if you choose to label such things as social engineering I have no problem with that. You seem to be judging the concept of social engineering as a negative, as if it’s a bad thing for a society to be “engineered”; where I think your logic is a failure is that you don’t seem to realize that anti-social engineering is also social engineering. There is absolutely no way to eliminate social engineering, it exists all the way down to the family unit. Once people, like you, accept that social engineering is a given, the logical thing to do is to is to choose the form of social engineering that gives real human equality across all races, genders, etc, as the primary purpose of society while understanding that equality in opportunity does not equate to equality in results.
Another thing that everyone needs to be “accept” is that bigotry will always exist, the question that an engineered society must address is how to “control” those bigotries while maintaining individual rights. We all have the right to be a bigot and hate whom ever we want; however, we do not have the right to express that bigotry and hate in ways that violate the rights of those we hate. This is the basis for a engineered “civil” society, you don’t have to like it, but if you don’t conform there are consequences.
Today’s social justice warriors are using their emotions as a guide and their bigotries to set their individual rights above all those they oppose. Most modern social justice warriors will not say this aloud; but I firmly believe their true end goal is that anyone they oppose should not have the right to think, feel, or express their opinions, and they are trying to social engineer the rights away from all those they oppose and ostracize absolutely anyone that disagrees with them. This method of social engineering, which is blatantly open opinion bigotry, is illogical in that by suppressing the rights of others to express their opinions they make their own opinions subject to the same suppression which leads to wide spread division and an uncivil society which is in direct opposition to their professed purpose of making society a better place for everyone. Social justice warriors are illogical idiots.
Very well said, Zoltar. (And I say that as someone who identifies as a social justice warrior.)
Zoltar writes: “The founding fathers designed the United States to provide a foundation to build a free society upon, a society that is based on laws and rights, if you choose to label such things as social engineering I have no problem with that. You seem to be judging the concept of social engineering as a negative, as if it’s a bad thing for a society to be “engineered”; where I think your logic is a failure is that you don’t seem to realize that anti-social engineering is also social engineering. There is absolutely no way to eliminate social engineering, it exists all the way down to the family unit. Once people, like you, accept that social engineering is a given, the logical thing to do is to is to choose the form of social engineering that gives real human equality across all races, genders, etc, as the primary purpose of society while understanding that equality in opportunity does not equate to equality in results.”
I refer to the term ‘social engineering’ in a later context. Largely postwar (2) and as collusion between government, business and the intelligence agencies. The social engineering I refer to is of a very different sort than the organization of a Constitutional Republic, and I hope that you will recognize this distinction. If I refer to social engineering, and if I mention the analysis of E Michael Jones (one example, but a good one) I am referring to something more insidious, and something in fact that operates against the Constitutional agreement or the Principles therein. A conversation detailing how these present social engineering projects came to be and who and what stood and stands behind them might be very interesting, yet it is beyond the scope of the Blog.
What I react against, and what I wrote about, has to do with recognizing and resisting coercive enterprise as a governmental project. But there is also the aspect of the collusion between media enterprises, government, big business and the education system. In a critique of *our present*, and in fair and open discourse among people of good will and intelligence, all these things should be able to be talked about in calm ones. And that is what my interest is.
If I speak of ‘resistance’ to hyper-liberal machinations, or that of the NSA, or military-intelligence units that establish themselves (embed is the term used) in media offices and involve themselves in the designing of content and the presentation of it; or the fabrication Of news and issue, or also of events (I am one who has noticed this within the mysteries of 9/11); and if I make efforts to bring out a coherent, non mealy-mouthed critical discourse on these themes, I am entirely within the bounds of right. One does this —- one must do this —- within a democratic and civil society. I notice that you have your critical platform and your descriptions of it that you place on your conversational table as it were. And I have mine. I see yours as more conventional, taken on the whole.
I have a problem with this formulation:
“Once people, like you, accept that social engineering is a given, the logical thing to do is to is to choose the form of social engineering that gives real human equality across all races, genders, etc, as the primary purpose of society while understanding that equality in opportunity does not equate to equality in results.”
What you are defending, it seems to me, is more or less precisely the machinations within the US that have been undertaken. In this sense you describe precisely what happened in the postwar and the deliberate engineering of an egalitarian society. You support, therefor, an ideological position not much unlike that of Hyper-Liberalism. For if you establish as your primary value ‘real human equality across all races, genders, etc. as the primary purpose of society’ there is nothing that you would exlude as part of the machinations to arrive at that. Take it to a farther point as a thought-experiment. Assassinations of trouble-makers. Infiltration of their groups by agents. The creation of distorting propaganda and the insertion of it through media-systems and also Hollywood. The rewriting of education agenda.
And what I say, therefor, to you is that your stated position is that of a Cuckservative. I know that that word sounds rather isulting and I admit it contains a good deal of *acid*. Yet it is a valid term if it is carefully defined. I am not sure it would be fair to say that you cannot be a Conservative and hold to (what I have taken to be) hyper-liberal ideological position, but the conservatism that I am familiar with would take issue with what you have written at a fundamental level.
Another thing that everyone needs to be “accept” is that bigotry will always exist, the question that an engineered society must address is how to “control” those bigotries while maintaining individual rights. We all have the right to be a bigot and hate whom ever we want; however, we do not have the right to express that bigotry and hate in ways that violate the rights of those we hate. This is the basis for a engineered “civil” society, you don’t have to like it, but if you don’t conform there are consequences.
Bigotry will only arise when unalike peoples are brought into too close contact. My point is not that prejudice and other negatibve traits are not real and ‘bad’, but rather that I and people who see similarly to myself do not see the assertion of our rights, or the protection of our identity, or the conservation of the social integrity of our countries (I speak from a larger, international perspective here) as being evidence of bigotry. But of course *we* are described in these terms. To desire to protect your culture, or the integrity of your social body, even at a biological level, is made to appear a crime, and it is shamed. I reject such an insinuation utterly and facially.
You also are using the word ‘hate’ in precisely the same terms as the liberal/hyper-liberal Left. You assume, then, that I ‘hate’? That would be convenient to your assertion, I suppose. But I do not hate anyone. What we do is to notice and then to resist coercion by twisted rhetoric of this sort. The operative word is coercion. Blaming, shaming, villifying. Framing. Distorting. Lying.
Today’s social justice warriors are using their emotions as a guide and their bigotries to set their individual rights above all those they oppose. Most modern social justice warriors will not say this aloud; but I firmly believe their true end goal is that anyone they oppose should not have the right to think, feel, or express their opinions, and they are trying to social engineer the rights away from all those they oppose and ostracize absolutely anyone that disagrees with them. This method of social engineering, which is blatantly open opinion bigotry, is illogical in that by suppressing the rights of others to express their opinions they make their own opinions subject to the same suppression which leads to wide spread division and an uncivil society which is in direct opposition to their professed purpose of making society a better place for everyone. Social justice warriors are illogical idiots.
You see the SJW in some clarity. But you do not see yourself in as clear a light. You have given with one hand what you have snatched away with the other. You have stated that ‘social engineering’ is necessary and good, and you have stated what its proper goal should be, but then you seem to condemn the SJW for setting out to attain that by what means are necessary.
You are, in your way, a reflection of social justice warriorship. It is there, as clear as can be in what you write. Your basic convictions are more or less those, more or less the same. But from your right-of center position, more on the progressive Left than on the ideological Right, you notice those ‘idiots’ and they irk you.
I have tried to be fair in my critique of what you have written but perhaps I am getting something wrong. Please tell me if I have.
Alizia wrote, “You have stated that ‘social engineering’ is necessary and good”
No Alizia I did not state that social engineering is “necessary” or “good”, a summation of what I said is that social engineering exists and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it.
Alizia wrote, “you have stated what its proper goal should be”
No Alizia I did not state what it’s “proper goal should be”, I stated “accept that social engineering is a given, the logical thing to do is to is to choose the form of social engineering that gives real human equality across all races, genders, etc,” I emphasized the part where I stated “the logical thing to do” and that is not the same thing as what the “proper goal should be” – you inferred it, I didn’t explicitly state it.
Alizia wrote, “you seem to condemn the SJW for setting out to attain that by what means are necessary.”
No Alizia I condemned the SJW’s for their opinion bigotry, abuse of their own rights to suppress the rights of others, their illogical approach to social justice which is in direct opposition to making society a better place for everyone.
As you have done in the past, not properly comprehending and using blinders when you paraphrase is misrepresenting what was written and it’s going to get you into trouble again.
Onward…
An underlying theme in your comment is that I’m more like those I oppose than I am willing to admit; that is far, far from the truth. I firmly believe that “there are no chasm walls created so distant by ideologies that are not bridged by the solid foundation of underlying human commonalities that support those ideologies”. Regardless of race, gender, straight, LGBT, ideology, genetics, geography, etc, etc, etc, we as human beings are vastly more alike than we are different, separatists simply do not understand this fact. When it comes to progress in society, it’s our commonalities that society as a whole should focus on not our differences, a society that puts our differences far above our commonalities is doomed to violent conflicts. The divisions you seem to be promoting will cause far more conflict between peoples than peace; I oppose your separatist ideological views.
The ‘logical thing to do’, as you say, amounts to your understanding of what is proper and good, more or less. But what is ‘the logical thing’ is, of course, a set of assertions. Logic in itself has no value-content. One has to have, and present, ideas or values within a logical structure.
An underlying observation about American Conservatives is that they have become patsies to the emotional force of Hyper-Liberal ideology and, if you will, their ‘logic’. It is true that I perceive that you can be best located within the liberal camp and not within any conservatism that I recognize. Your brand or style of conservatism, if indeed you define yourself through that term, looks to me to be a sort of rigidism (if I can coin such a phrase).
You are making classic liberal statements about ‘race, gender, sexual identity, genetics, geography’ (et cetera) which are expressions of your liberalized position. There is no way round this Zoltar. You have stated it and then restated it. There is no blame in this.
Therefor, for me and for now, my classification of your position as being ‘slightly right of center’ but a center which is largely located within Progressive-Liberalism, seems accurate. And one can further locate you within ‘Americanism’.
My positions, insofar as I have developed fixed positions, question the assumptions and the predicates upon which these things rest.
My purpose is to try to locate and distinguish the ideas that people have and express, and to understand, and write about, that we are involved in idea-wars that stem from differing predicates and often invisible assumptions that we make. If I seek to ‘locate you’ it is not through malice.
Violent conflicts are to be avoided when possible. But violent conflicts have been, and still are, a concomitant to the human struggle. To resist the present hyper-liberal powers, the collusion between government, educators, media and business (in a nut shell), and to succeed in confronting dictatorial power (be it multiculturalism of globalism or the dictates of the ‘Americanopolis’) may at some point involve struggle that includes violence. Violence is always there, more or less, as a backdrop. It is not a struggle that, right now, involves violence and yet violence and its possibility seem present.
I am looking forward and my range of sight is the next 50-60 years. (Influenced to some degree by Guillaume Faye). More or less the same time from the social and cultural and ideological revolutions of the Sixties up to our present. I suggest to you and anyone who reads what I write that we are in a cycle where fundamental tenets will be/are being examined/reexamined and very siginficant changes in the established order will manifest. I suggest that you have much more in common with Chris than you have with people who are thinking in my terms and I offer this observation as a form of service to both of you.
As to the movement toward change, it is going on now and it is gaining ground. It is distinct from what you might think it is though. To underatand it one has to study it and to see it not through the eyes of media-systems, but on its own terms. In my writing, as in my personal research, I seek to explore and comprehend what is going on in these movements and why. And I seek our environments where my ideas and presuppositions can be challenged.
And this is, of course, why I expend energy trying to extract from what people say and think the core, operative ideas. Nothing is absolutely fixed and I am always open to revision.
I’m glad you’re commenting again, Alizia.
May your comments on EA be numerous in the new year!
Alizia,
In a relatively brief comment, compared to what you usually write, please explain how I am “making classic liberal statements about ‘race, gender, sexual identity, genetics, geography’ “ and how these perceived “liberal statements” are “expressions of [my] liberalized position”.
Point of fact: I lean far more Conservative than I do Liberal these days but I do have Liberal leanings too, the problem is I’m very rapidly becoming only a Conservative and it’s really not because my positions are necessarily changing it’s because the Left has been pushing their ideology farther and farther to the left and ostracizing anyone who doesn’t agree with their extreme positions. Democratic Party and Liberal are pretty much bastardized terms now in much the same way Republican and Conservative are bastardized terms. Personally I think we should scrap the labels and just have positions then people can vote based on positions instead of party or ideological labels.
Most Esteemed Zoltar, I think this statement:
“I firmly believe that ‘there are no chasm walls created so distant by ideologies that are not bridged by the solid foundation of underlying human commonalities that support those ideologies’. Regardless of race, gender, straight, LGBT, ideology, genetics, geography, etc, etc, etc, we as human beings are vastly more alike than we are different, separatists simply do not understand this fact. When it comes to progress in society, it’s our commonalities that society as a whole should focus on not our differences, a society that puts our differences far above our commonalities is doomed to violent conflicts. The divisions you seem to be promoting will cause far more conflict between peoples than peace; I oppose your separatist ideological views.
Is essentially a liberal position. (And I also agree with you that our labels have become unwieldy and that we need better definitions.)
If it interests you to know, and perhaps it doesn’t, I am attempting to dismantle the various forms of liberalism/hyper-liberalism that operate these days. (I do not mean destroy, I mean break down into parts that can be analysed).
So, when I come across what seems to me to be a liberal statement in encapsulated form I attempt to identify it. But in no sense do I see liberalism (ie as in classic European liberalism) to be a flaw. In fact I tremendously admire it. But I see that it can only function in a society that is essentially united in character, world-picture, and other *agreements* as I call them.
Alizia wrote, “Is essentially a liberal position.”
Declaring it so does not make it so.
Please reread my first paragraph, you didn’t understand what I asked.
HOW are these statements Liberal and HOW are the statements expressions of [my] liberalized position?
If you can’t effectively explain this opinion of yours, then you need to withdraw the criticism that they Liberal and the implication that they are somehow wrong just because they are Liberal.
I’d suggest Googling ‘American liberalism’ and reading the Wiki page. It will very quickly answer the questins you ask.
I ‘declare’ your position to be American liberalism in the most essential sense! Look out your windo, it is now being sky-wrote as we speak!
I carefully said that I do not think social and political Liberalism are wrong or bad, and it is a mistake to think in black and white terms.
I think that liberalism gives way to certain excesses, or it has certain weaknesses. Aspects of liberalism, or hyper-liberalism, are being reacted against. Here and in Europe.
I withdraw nothing, NOTHING do you hear? If this continues I will move beyond both italics and bold into something … unseen yet on this blog and in all cyberspace. Don’t keep pushing!
Alizia wrote, “I withdraw nothing, NOTHING do you hear? If this continues I will move beyond both italics and bold into something … unseen yet on this blog and in all cyberspace. Don’t keep pushing!”
You’ve STILL not answered the question I asked and proceeded to ordered me to go elsewhere to find this mystery answer that you yourself cannot seem to articulate to support your claims.
There, that should be a big enough push to see this “unseen yet on this blog and in all cyberspace” new fangled thingy that you’re going to use to thrash me. I’m holding my breath. 🙂
Holy Cow!
I’m not being shown this “unseen yet on this blog and in all cyberspace” new fangled thingy or the answer to the question I asked which was for Alizia to support her claim.
I’m shocked, shocked!
I suggest that you have much more in common with Chris than you have with people who are thinking in my terms and I offer this observation as a form of service to both of you.
I think Alizia thinks this is a bad thing, meant to show Zoltar that he isn’t a “real” conservative. But I think most American conservatives are perfectly OK accepting the fact that they have more in common with liberals than they do with Nazis. I think we should all be OK with that.
Alizia, read “Walden II” by B.F. Skinner if you haven’t already. Your skin will crawl.
Alizia references E. Michael Jones as another one of her intellectual icons.
This is E. Michael Jones, according to the ADL:
E. Michael Jones is an anti-Semitic Catholic writer who promotes the view that Jews are dedicated to propagating and perpetrating attacks on the Catholic Church and moral standards, social stability, and political order throughout the world. He portrays the Jewish religion as inherently treacherous and belligerent towards Christianity. He describes Jews as “outlaws and subversives [who use] religion as a cover for social revolution,” and claims that Judaism possesses “a particularly malignant spirit.” Jones also imagines the contemporary world, with its social ills, as having been cast in the imprint of Judaism, characterizing 21st-century civilization as “a Jewish world run on commercial principles.” He also identifies this “Jewish modernity” as representing “blood, the law, calculation, and hate.”
Is E. Michael Jones wrong, joe?
You are really a ‘trip’ as some hippy might have said! You require not only exegtic effort but represent a hermeneutic undertaking of scale! Still, I appreciate the (sort-of) challenge though really, Chris, you should force yourself to do much better.
First, you have been playing a forum-game and trying to influence others to condemn me, as you condemn me, blindly or through shadowing. This is a tested tactic of the Hyper-Liberal and it shows, quite clearly, perverse use of rhetoric in the service of deviousness. You are blind to this aspect because, as I have said a dozen times, you are completely, thoroughly, unquestioningly, certain of the Righteousness of your position. This is a bad position to reside in. Certainly it is non-philosophical. This sort of deviousness is ever-more apparent, every passing day, and so call to mind our beloved Grey Lady, the journalistic standard. But let’s not get hung on details, let’s ask: What does this mean? What does this presage?
Now, I declare myself as a ‘free-thinker’. I do not (at least I do not think so) receive my opinions from a source and intone them like ‘talking points’. I do my own research. I was not always so given to this method and policy. I was formerly more attracted to Left-Progressive worldpicture, and in this sense fell for the emotionalized rhetoric. Not all of the Progressive-Left is engaged in false descrition though. I still have a great deal of respect for Noam Chomsky for example and his analysis of power and power-systems (On Power and Ideology: The Mangua Lectures) is, in my view, a masterpiece comparable in certain sense to a Platonic exposition. Saying this causes many right-leaning types to experience bowel disorder, yet I can defend my view intellectually (but won’t here).
The issue with you, Dear One, is that you deal in info-bits and sentimentalized fact-sets which you have lapped up off the floor where someone barfed them out. I have read many many different of your posts and your error is that you do not have wide reading under your belt. Your views are those of a child. You see in black and white terms. You force conclusions where a great deal more nuanced and careful thought is required. You are a disease in our present and a virus in the social body. But this, to you, sound completely ourageous! So unfair! Calumny! “How can this fascist tell me that my thinking is distorted!?! I will go after her and show her what’s what!” (And then you spit up all over the blog: self-righteousness, afflicted certainty, virtue signalling of the first order).
I have done my research into myself, that is myself as one born in a Jewish family and raised up in Zionist environment. I have read the most important books on the topic of anti-Semitism (Malcom Hay, Joshua Traechenburg, Bernard Lazare and a dozen others). And I have read a great deal of the opposite side of the issue: Houston Chamberlain, Hilaire Belloc, Kevin McDonald, and of course the more obvious screeds of classic anti-Semitism). And what have you read? And how deeply have you studied? Do you know anything at all of Jewish history? Have you read extensively on the theme of Jewish liberation in European history? Have you read up on Judaism? Have yo looked into Talmudic teaching? More conetemporaneously have you looked into and have you read up on the Holocaust controversy? Can you name the tenets of Holocaust revisionism? Are you aware of Israeli activists who oppose Zionism? Who of them have you read? To what degree can you honestly say that you are informed on any part of this?
You can’t. You have no knowledge of these things. And no interest in them. But I have had to have an existential and religious interest in these things, given my background. And I have done my work. You have not done any work worth speaking of. You are therefor a shill. But yey I do not blame you personally. You are the manifest disease of our intellectual present and you must be cured.
Now, E Michael Jones, the correction 😉
E Michael Jones is definitely Catholic, at least by birth and declaration. He is not quite a ‘traditional Catholic’ though. He is not an ‘anti-Semitic’ writer and it must be understood at the outset that, in truth, no critical position of any sort, in any tone and timbre, is allowed to be made of Jews or Judaism, and quite definitely not by any Gentile. This is the first rule that must be understood when one approaches the topic. Everyone knows this, more or less, and no one is advised to mention that they notice it because noticing it is, naturally, ‘anti-Semitic’. To understand how this has come about, one has to understand the last European war and the postwar era; the psychology of Judaism and Jewish culture vis-a-vis the wartime disaster; and then a modus operandi which has been constructed for use in our present. This can be glimpsed by reading, for example, Normon Finklestein. You will not of course and in a sense you need not: Your purpose is not understanding but rather the wielding of shame-tools in your hyper-liberal hysterical tantrums.
E Michael Jones criticises Judaism in certain specific areas, but moreover he criticizes ‘the Jewish revolutionary spirit’. That is, he turns an analytical eye to an aspect, a general aspect, of Jewish influence in European history and within social and political movements. I call this not ‘anti-Semitism’ per se but Jewish criticism. Whether it is fair and accurate Jewish criticism, and weather he is a fair and a good historican is up for debate. But any historian’s views are up for debate and few agree one with the other. But the most important element here is that he is engaging in critical view, and thus in critique, and certainly you of all people understand that critique is not to be allowed! You are to have fixed opinions, politically correct opinions, and you are to gargle them forth like religious dogma! You will march in step and you will carry approved banners!
You are a disease, Chris, and your mind needs to grow and find its way to a cure!
Now, what is most important here is that you are one among millions and you are shving your way forward into the Public Sphere and craping all over the place. It stinks. But it is not just a mob of Lefties, in truth the disease is a cultural disease, a failure of intellect, a failure of proper education and training.
OK, back to your silly, baiting post just above. What you have done is to have presented a distorted image, one that you can manage and lord it over, and presented it as a sort of pre-determined shame-inquisition to someone likely unversed, and possibly also uninterested in, the question of Jewish influence or activity. You have set up the only ‘ethical’ answer through a distorted presentation of fact.
It is distorting, and even rather malevolent as a tactic and as intention.
All the questions of our day, all the problems of our day, all the controversies of our day, all the philosophical and religious problems of our day, all topics and any topic needs to be unfettered from the terrible bonds of determined Politically Correct thinking. This is a vast and demanding work. Don’t give up on yourself in relation to that work.
“Is E. Michael Jones wrong, joe?”
I’ll bet you’re asking that, thinking I should have a boilerplate, reflex answer to that ready to go. My answer is: I have no idea.
Unlike far too many people these days, I withhold judgement on all but matters of universal moral rectitude until I feel sufficiently read on them to have a worthy opinion. This is essentially what I’m saying about Alizia, too. As stated earlier, I’m not reacting to the trigger-words in her writing. I’m withholding judgement until such time that I’ve digested enough of her posts. I think it’s a worthy endeavor, because at least from what I have had the opportunity to read of hers, it’s very apparent that she’s done her homework, and I truly do not believe she’s just trying to be showy and pedantic
You admitted that you don’t read much of what she writes, yet you’re calling her an idiot Nazi. Maybe you should put on some nice, soothing music, bite down on a soft stick for when you get to the trigger-words, get into a zen mind-state, and backtrack a bit.
Unlike far too many people these days, I withhold judgement on all but matters of universal moral rectitude until I feel sufficiently read on them to have a worthy opinion.
“Are Jews evil?” would seem to me a question whose answer is already a matter of universal moral rectitude. But perhaps you still see it as an open question, worthy of debate.
You admitted that you don’t read much of what she writes, yet you’re calling her an idiot Nazi.
I have read enough to know that she is an idiot Nazi. She denies the number killed in the Holocaust. She claims Jews are involved in a worldwide conspiracy. She believes in racial segregation. She has made all of these views clear at one time or another.
There is no further information needed for me to fairly call her an idiot Nazi.
::: sigh :::
Your statements about what I say are restatements. Reconfigurations.
Nazi is a meaningless term, obviously, and can only be used for someone who is, well, a Nazi. However and with that said I am indeed a revisionist of WWl and WW2 history in the sense that I think that to get to an accurate understanding if one is swayed by a specific national narrative (ie either English or French of German or America) one will not arrive at ‘truth’. Truth is often a prejudiced description that favors the one holding it.
The rise of National Socialism in Germany led to a movement within Germany that focused decades of previous ant-Jewish sentiment into a process of expelling Jews. This is nicely and accurately documented in Raul Hillberg’s ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’. The first volume (of 3) describes how the process of expelling Jews took place: legal machinations within the German bureaucracy. When I read it I came to realize that, in Germany then and previously in dozens of other circumastances exile has been the fate of the Jewish nation. It is in fact an aspect of Jewish identity, and therefor my own identity. Jewish history in the European diaspora has not been in any sense easy. Yet it has been Jewish fate. In a sense (I came to muse) it is written into the DNA, which is to say the mythology and psychology, of Jewish people. The expelling from Germany was one more octave of the same, continuing historical event. This is neither a justification for or a defense of Germany under rule of the National Socialists. It is just to put the even out on the table within the historical context.
Myself, as an ex-Jew and as one who has chosen, deliberately and rationally, to identify as Christian, now look on Jewish history differently. Yes, I am inclined to see Jewish complicity in Jew’s own fate. That is to say that I do not see their persecutors as entirely blamed. This is true. I tend to see people —- all people, any people —- as operating out of established dynamics. We need only look as far as, say, a personal relationship to understand this. By having this perspective on Jewish history, and also noting its ‘tragic’ and mythologically-bound aspect, I do not and I cannot see Jews as mere victims of history. Yet I am certain that this is how Jews see themselves. This is evident in the Bible stories obviously. But it is visible on many different levels within, if you will permit me to say, Jewish psychology (very definitely a special psychology).
I do, now, have a critical position in repsect to Judaism and Jewry. I think Jewry is, once again, getting itself into hot water. But I also think that the actors who bring Jewry into hot water are a small minority. All the Jews I know, including those of my family, are simply people trying to live their lives. Except within my rigid religious family many Jews I know are not connected in any meanigful way with Judaism. They are post-Jews on the edge of assimilation.
My greatest concern, and here I am aware that I am speaking with an American audience, is the influence of American Jewish Neo-Conservatives in the machinations that have led to the embroilments in the Middle East. I am also concerned for collusion, or at the very least *strong influence* of Israel through American Jewry on American foreign policy. I admit to being inclined to see Israel-US complicity in the events of 9/11. That is a bold statement and one for which I have no concrete proof (yet there is a good deal of indirect evidence). Obviously, this concerns me as it should any thinking person. But even this is in some sense the tip of the iceberg because what it connotes is that our ‘reality’, the world that we perceive, is directed and guided by power-factions in business, government, in intelligence and psy-ops, through Hollywood production and then through the production of News. I admit that I think strongly that we do not now live in a ‘free’ world but a world in which we are managed.
But I do not think it can be said, nor should it be said (if what I propose has truth in it, and I am not sure nor certain how to become sure), that ‘a cabal of Jews’ determines our present in these senses. They said as much about the Bolshevic revolution in Russia. This appears false and inaccurate. However, it seems true to me that Jews, by and large, are generally involved in revolutionary movements and, on the whole, tend to originate them and guide them. I do not see this observation as being necessarily anti-Semitic. To understand a people as forward-driven and ‘revolutionary’ must take into consideration that there is a positive and a negative aspect to any trait.
As to the Holocaust I have no doubt that it is used as a cover for certain forms of Jewish activism, or I might say used deviously and as a psychological tool to gain ground. This ties in to Jewish psychology and also to a structure of view (a metaphysics really) which was developed in the postwar. The modern forms of ‘cultural Marxism’ have ties to this psychology and I would further say that t seems cogent to me that European Jews, more specifically German Jews, carry a deep-seated animosity for Gentile society generally and seek, psychologically, to overpower Gentiles and, if this can be said, direct them along certain paths of perception. I honestly think this. I have honestly concluded this. I have no reason to change an opinion I have come to honestly and through some considerable research.
The gas chambers of the Holocaust are a myth. This myth has been exploded. Between 2-3 millions of Jews were killed through concentional means in the East. This is according to David Irving who I respect. He has his ways of arriving at those numbers. Yet even with this I have some problems. If the killing window shall be seen as 3 years, that equals 1,095 days. Three million into 1,095 equals an average of 2,740 Jews killed every day. That is a huge number. The math troubles me to some degree, and yet I accept that the large Polish population, and that of the East, did not simply ascend into the sky. So, I use the number of 3 million killed. There you have my ‘revision’ in a nutshell. (And modern historiography has made such revisions as well. The numbers said to be killed in the Camps have been steadily reduced and the plaques reforged to reflect the reduced numbers by the responsible authorities).
As a White Nationalist (with provisos) my view is that those of European descent have all the right in the world to determine their own biological and cultural fate and destiny and, if they so choose, to resist and to throw off forced multiculturalism and forced blending. True indeed, this is a problematic posture, I admit this. Yet I have looked it through and I see it as a necessary position to have. I ally with those who share this view and I am now and I will continue to be an activist, if only in idea, for this goal.
Your rebuttal, Chris? 😉
Fuck you. That’s my rebuttal.
Alizia: The gas chambers of the Holocaust are a myth.
This is the diseased mind some of you have been defending and enabling here.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Well, in point of fact it is you who have been ‘enabling’ me, my Dear One.
And there is —- even here —- a larger lesson to be thought on. It is how the Holocaust event has been used as a tremendous manipulation tool. It was created to be such. It evolved over time to become a tool of guilt-slinging to end all guilt-slinging tools. It is both a monument and a shrine to Ontological Malevolence. The idea of the Holocaust has been established in our consciousness as the sole emblem of evil, it functions there deeply and mysterious, potently, and for this reason your slander with the term ‘Nazi’ et cetera has power in our present. It likely has great power among those you attempt to influence here on this blog.
And it is exactly this, among numerous such psychological constructs, that must be seen through. Honestly, I tell you what I really believe. I have come to see that this Nazi name-calling has metaphysical weight in our present. And though you wish to weild it against poor defenseless me, in fact it is the root of hatred directed against white people, the people of Europe, and those of European descent. You do not see this now —- you cannot see it —- but in time you will. (My prediction).
I really and truly believe this. And because I see it and understand it to be true, and very very wrong and devious, I am forced through my moral and ethical sense to point it out.
I certainly admit that it is all a heavy business. That is, deconstructing and revisualizing our present and turning back against the currents that bring destruction. I know that this must sound fantastic to your ears (and other ears) and that is evidence of the depth and intensity of the propaganda into which tremendous psychic force has been pumped.
It took me two full years after I was exposed to the deconstruction (specifically in this case that of the Nazi gas-chambers) to get up the courage to examine it all. This is not to say there were no internment camps and not to say that people (and Jews) did not die in them. But the hellish, Hieronymous Bosch-like gas chamber propoganda appears to have been a Soviet invention.
So you see, in my quest for clear vision and real understanding I have had to undergo, internally, the difficulty of coming to face some of the mega-lies that inform our present. That is what the ‘red-pill’ is.
Alizia Tyler wrote, “The gas chambers of the Holocaust are a myth.”
PROVE YOUR CLAIM!
I’m dead serious, there is no walking away from this one Alizia, prove it right now and don’t you dare attempt to turn the table and tell others that they have to prove that the gas chambers existed.
You made a direct claim – PROVE IT!
Alizia Tyler wrote, “The numbers said to be killed in the Camps have been steadily reduced and the plaques reforged to reflect the reduced numbers by the responsible authorities.”
I’m not sure you were trying to use that statement to support your claim that “the gas chambers of the Holocaust are a myth” but it does not support the claim.
I don’t especially care to see EA be the site of a debate over this non-controversy. The fact of the Holocaust is beyond debate, and denials are either the result of delusion, gullibility, deceit (as in “Jews weren’t always gassed to death; sometimes they were shot”), deliberate lies or anti-Semitism. I don’t really care which. I view statements like this one self-rebutting, like the claim the world is flat, that the nation is secretly run by the Trilateral Commission and the Masons, or that Bush and Cheny bombed the Twin Towers. I’ll let a frequent commenter get away with that kind of absurd statement now and then: if someone enters with it, they get pointed to the exit.
You see, my father liberated a Nazi death camp. It haunted him to his dying day. He saw the evidence first hand, and he was the most reliable source imaginable. The deniers don’t even know what they are denying.
Alizia’s never supported a claim with anything more than a citation to some far-right European, Zoltar. For all her talk of her superior intellect and ability to argue based on facts and logic, she is incapable of articulating a single one of her arguments in a convincing manner, using actual evidence, which is why she relies on these appeals to non-authority.
All the denialist arguments that the Holocaust has been exaggerated have been about as thoroughly debunked as those arguing that Bush did 9/11. The only people who still believe this shit are idiots and loons.
I see I cross-posted with you, Jack. Great response.
Your father was a hero.
Friends, enemies, and the undecided…
I wouldn’t have made any effort, here, to direct anyone to the sources that support the claim that I hold. I would have refused Zoltar’s demand. Those sources are there and available to anyone. Anyone can easily undertake the research if they are so inclined. The metaphor of the Red Pill is apt.
I provided my understanding of a meta-event (I mean the event and the use made of it) and I described it as I did —- the ultimate tool of blame-slinging —- and it is my understanding that it is used as such a tool, a knife really to the heart, of Europe. That is my understanding. It is what I have come to after I did my research. If it is not obvious I have resolved to serve those who are hurt by the use of this event, and that does mean turning against ‘my own’ (in this particular sense). I know my position is incomprehensible to many. It surpises even myself as it becomes ever more concrete (which is why these oppositional conversations have value for me and also I think why I seek them).
The course of this conversation, as it were, was directed by Chris, step by step, for specific purposes, and these purposes are now manifest and evident. As an ‘argument’ it really does work. It’s pretty obvious. This rehearsal illustrates, precisely, how it is used. The view, the imago, is embedded indelibly in consciousness. Darkly, demoniacally powerful. The ultimate emblem of ontological malevolence.
If having the view that I have is unethical or immoral per se, or if having that view and understanding is determined to be such, I have nothing to say to that. I make no counter-argument except to express myself as I have here (focussing on the larger issue). I can’t control how any other person frames an event or interprets someone else —- me in this case —- who does not see it so.
But the lesson is striking, from where I sit: the consequences of thoughtcrime result in ostracism and invective of a very directed and virulent order. Yet I accept the consequences.
Alizia wrote, “I would have refused Zoltar’s demand. Those sources are there and available to anyone. Anyone can easily undertake the research if they are so inclined.”
This is the kind of shifting of responsibility reply that I’ve come to expect from Alizia, she’s done it twice in this thread alone to my direct challenges to support her claims. This shifting of responsibility is standard rhetoric for Alizia and other internet trolls when they are directly confronted with having to support their ignorant claims.
You know what happens when you throw a rock into to the Challenger Deep in the southern end of the Mariana Trench? That rock is swallowed up by the masses of water that push it into the inaccessible dark abyss of the deep, never to be seen again. A similar thing can be said of throwing an argument at Alizia Tyler; that argument is swallowed up by diatribes of nonsense that push the argument into the inaccessible dark abyss of her mind, never to be thought of again.
Alizia doesn’t understand the difference between genuine intelligent articulation of ideas, her comments are fogged over convoluted screeds of nicely worded meandering randomness. Overall, Alizia’s comments are usually great examples of communication malpractice. A very wise, intelligent and articulate man once said, “any… issue can be blurred and muddied by piling on generalities, tangents, cosmic puzzles, dancing angels and navel-gazing exercises”, Alizia really does excel at this.
Based on the many, many screeds I’ve read from Alizia since joining Ethics Alarms (two years and twelve days ago) most, if not all, of the threads she gets directly involved with end up being diverted to her one clear obsession, separation of society based solely on race. I’ve come to the conclusion that Alizia is a walking talking equivalent to a modern day Nazi sympathizer and her sole purpose is to spread racist separation propaganda.
This rehearsal illustrates, precisely, how it is used. The view, the imago, is embedded indelibly in consciousness. Darkly, demoniacally powerful. The ultimate emblem of ontological malevolence.
You are a parody of yourself.
Ah, you are still desirous that I *prove* to you that your general outlook, your informing, is American liberal. I gave you a very good reference. I notice that arguing with you is like arguing with a large stone. This is not a setting that allows for prolonged exchange of views, sources, etc. The medium is like writing on a wall that steadily drops down. Sustained interchanges cannot be maintained.
I have unconventional, indeed unpopular and nearly illegal views on certain topics. No matter what, and on a largely centrist, semi-conservative blog as this, located within ‘the Americanopolis’ ideologically, the presentation of my views seems always to cause not just feather rufflings but, really, certain forms of anguish or pain. I might use my most notable opponent as an example. I feel a certain conflict: on one hand I am always inclined to push and prod into issues, to kick the bee’s nest so to speak. On the other I suffer guilt for what I do. I am not kidding. Many times I have awoken in the deep night with remorse over what I have written. It is my personal issue, this I admit, and I am trying to overcome it. And the other thing is respect for Jack’s blog. Jack has clearly stated, and it makes great sense to me, that his blog shall not become one devoted to acrimonious epic battles on the topics he clearly described. Therefor, I offered a final statement of where I stand as I resolve to drop the issue (but also note that I did not bring this issue up but merely defended myself against it, explained my relation to a question with clear, precise, careful prose: not one thing wrong with what I have done).
As to the rest of what you have written, I have no comment. Simply because I have already addressed it. You are completely free to characterize my ideas, my methods, my tactics, as you see fit. You are free to make your assessments of my political and social philosophy, too. And so you should! I think you know that ‘I beg to differ’.
I do not see how some of the contentious issues will ever be resolved through this medium. I see that this does not happen, speaking generally. The best we can do is to work to present our view as-against some other in the hope, I suppose, of influencing someone who reads to at least consider a different perspective.
Alizia Tyler wrote, “This is not a setting that allows for prolonged exchange of views”
Did you, the commenter that’s constantly posting prolong drawn-out comments expressing your varying views, actually write that sentence or did someone hack into your commenting account?
What’s kinda funny is that you just posted a 414 word comment trying to share your view contentious issues will ever be resolved through this medium which implies that you think it’s kinda pointless to comment here and yet you have posted thousand, upon thousands (well over 10,000 words that includes your 1251 word initial comment) of words right here in this thread trying to discuss contentious issues but when someone directly challenges you to back up or explain a single claim you go mute, try to shift responsibility, send them elsewhere, and say things like “this is not a setting that allows for prolonged exchange of views”. Alizia, you’re full of something and it’s beginning to leak and stink.
Alizia Tyler is an internet troll of epic proportions that should be ignored. Every thread she actively participates in goes off the rails.
(My post beginning with ‘Ah’ should have been headed as directed to Esteemed Zoltar. )
The closest anyone ever came to making a convincing argument against the gas chambers was Fred Leuchter. He claimed to be an engineer (he wasn’t), and tried to sell his theory that there should have been residual HCN in the walls of the chambers if so many died there, but he found none. I actually used HCN to fumigate ships before it was banned. It leaves zero repeat ZERO residual, which is why it was also used in households at one time. The only one of his theories that almost held water was the fact that reducing a single body to ash requires burning it at high temperature for several hours, which requires enormous amounts of fuel, so disposing of up to 12,000 per day as some eyewitness accounts and documents claim would be very difficult, but not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle.
I also have to say that I’m inclined to defend people that give voice to unpopular ideas, because in their own way, maybe even unwittingly, they’re helping to keep freedom kindled. Few things scare and repulse me like people that say “You shall not say or think that!”
I kind of want to go into one of these places, order my food, then say to the barrister, “Thank you ma’am/sir/indeterminate.” Then walk out before they have a chance to respond.
Would that be better or worse trolling than what these guys did?
They should have just told her “if you want my hat off, why don’t you come and take it?” Snowflakes melt if confronted forcefully enough.
Not the female ones. Their snow may be flakes in a private encounters, but quickly freeze to balls when challenged in public.
This is even farther afield than the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
None of the lawyers on the baker’s side claimed that a baker could decline to bake a pastry because the receipient planned to, or had attended, a same-sex wedding.
Jack wrote, “When one of the students then asked her to explain what she thinks the MAGA hat stands for, to which she shouted, “Fascism, Nazis! You have three minutes.” “
So in the mind of this ignorant social justice warrior the slogan Make America Great Again is somehow stands for “Fascism, Nazis!” The reply of the Rodrigue’s Coffee House President is indeed signature significance in that it’s yet another prime example that exposes the illogical mindset that’s a common thread running through the social justice warrior movement. I honestly do not think it’s possible to fix this kind of utter stupidity.
There’s something much more pernicious than stupidity at work here.
joed68 wrote, “There’s something much more pernicious than stupidity at work here.”
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
Have you read The Closing of the American Mind?
So…more social engineering is in order, to counter that stupidity?
I wrote, “I honestly do not think it’s possible to fix this kind of utter stupidity.”
luckyesteeyoreman wrote, “So…more social engineering is in order, to counter that stupidity?”
You’re wondering if “more social engineering is in order, to counter that stupidity” and I wrote that I don’t think it’s possible to “fix” the stupidity so I’m not completely positive I know what you mean. Can you clarify.
Second try…
Zoltar: Earlier in this thread, you discussed social engineering in a way that seemed accepting of it as an inevitable, unavoidable process – quoting you in Italics: “There is absolutely no way to eliminate social engineering, it exists all the way down to the family unit.”
Then you discussed what I consider applied social engineering to deal with problems in society that stem from stupidity (such as racism), to reduce or eliminate institutionalized practices in society such as racial segregation that result in what was recognized long ago as objectively unjust – for example, “separate but equal” public schools: “[T]he logical thing to do is to choose the form of social engineering that gives real human equality across all races, genders, etc, as the primary purpose of society while understanding that equality in opportunity does not equate to equality in results.”
The stupidity (my opinion) of the notion that races should continually identify and define themselves as distinct – and then, strive to keep themselves separate and distinct from other races – will always exist; you asserted that (and I agree, in belief that you are correct): “Another thing that everyone needs to…“accept” is that bigotry will always exist, the question that an engineered society must address is how to “control” those bigotries while maintaining individual rights.”
So taking all the above together, I interpreted you as saying (I mean, I concluded that you are saying): “The stupidity (“bigotries”) will always exist; it (they) can’t be fixed; so the logical thing to do is to choose the form of social engineering that would “control” those bigotries while maintaining individual rights.”
From there, I considered (1) the amount and types of social engineering already institutionalized in our society and (2) the problem of (what I think is) the stupidity of “open-to-the-public” businesses such as Rodrigue’s Coffee Shop that nevertheless engage in what I am calling here “pick-and-choose” practices toward customers (and potential customers) among that public – practices which, I believe you and I agree, are practices of discrimination, that is, irrationally and unreasonably unequal (and thus unjust) treatment of certain members of “the public.”
So I am left asking, what more can be done? What more should be done? If the social engineering that is already so built-in to our society won’t prevent that coffee shop from turning away customers who reflect what might be political views contrary to those embraced by the proprietor, will even more social engineering be necessary to stop such injustice? (I don’t see how to avoid more social engineering – with “political affiliation” added to civil rights anti-discrimination laws.)
My real point was that the kind of stupidity that was exhibited by the Rodrigue’s Coffee House President is the illogical mindset that’s a common thread running through out the social justice warrior movement and it’s not fixable; so if something is not fixable then social engineering isn’t going to fix it either.
My comment was really just a longer version of “You Can’t Fix Stupid”.
If you aren’t going to accept Christianity’s/Scripture’s teaching in one area, i.e. its condemnation of homosexuality, then please don’t appeal to it in another area, i.e. the Golden Rule. It shows that your reasoning is of the pick-and-choose type. It doesn’t convince your readers, and will eventually confuse you. Besides, the baker’s action doesn’t breach the Golden Rule. I can’t speak for the baker, but I could honestly say that I would want a gay baker to have the same right to refuse to bake a cake for a straight wedding as I would have to not bake one for a gay wedding. In other words, I would want gays with deeply held beliefs to treat me the same way I would treat them out of my deeply held beliefs.
No, Matt. You are ignorant. The Golden Rule is not a Christian construct, but an ancient philosphical one that predates Christ by thousands of years. It is called Reciprocity, and is one of the main ethics systems. I use the Golden Rule as the description because it is familiar, not because it is unique.
Friends love each other reciprocally from choice and their choice springs from a habit. —Aristotle
Do not do anything for others which is not good for yourself—The Pahlavi Texts
None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself! Muhammad
“Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” Doctrine of the Mean, (Confucius)
“This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” Hinduism
“Do not to another what you would not yourself experience.” The Incas
There are, oh, about a thousand more, from all parts of the world and all cultures.
I love being falsely accused of hypocrisy by someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Of that short list you shared, Jack, I think I like the Hindu version best. It’s still flawed, in my opinion, because sometimes (in my experience), my flaws require another to inflict pain on me that I need inflicted, in order to see past my own blindness. That’s the “faithful wounds of a friend” concept from the Bible. But then, it’s always best for the “inflicter” to be someone like a spouse or close friend – that is, someone I have developed trust for, and not a stranger – else I might react in a manner that (1) reflects distrust, (2) presumes aggression and a willful, controlling dismissal of, and disrespect for, who I am, and (3) involves retaliation which may, or may not, be proportional to the force of the attempted “correction.”
I think all of the versions are worth thinking about. There are lots of nuances—reciprocity isn’t as simple as the Golden Rule sounds to some people.
They all leave ambiguity on what constitutes harm to another by conditioning that harm on your own subjective preferences.
It’s a good quick test on your conduct, but it cannot be a final guide without additional exposition (which I assume most of the philosophies do—I know the Christian one from Matthew 7 and Luke 6 are surrounded by clarification as well as allied passages that shed light on it).
As my favorite rebuttal to “Whatever you like, do to others” is immediately undermined by “well, I’m a sado-masochist”.
“Don’t be an asshole” 2017 Reformed Church of Bill and Ted
I can’t speak for the baker, but I could honestly say that I would want a gay baker to have the same right to refuse to bake a cake for a straight wedding as I would have to not bake one for a gay wedding. In other words, I would want gays with deeply held beliefs to treat me the same way I would treat them out of my deeply held beliefs.
This seems really easy to say in a world where gays who would refuse to serve straight weddings don’t really exist, at least not in large enough numbers where a straight person runs any actual risk of ever facing this type of discrimination.
“Hey, I’d be totally OK with being discriminated against if all of human history were different!” isn’t a very compelling argument. It also doesn’t matter; both types of discrimination are wrong, and gays shouldn’t have the right to discriminate against straights.
Exactly. This is the “two wrongs make a right” theory. Your mother knew why it didn’t work.
For humanity’s sake, we might need to start drowning emotional runts of the litter like this in burlap sacks.
joed68 wrote, “For humanity’s sake, we might need to start drowning emotional runts of the litter like this in burlap sacks.”
That might be a permanent Final Solution to get the irritation out of hour hair; however, it’s certainly unethical to state it, immoral to think it and illegal to do it.
…irritation out of our hair…”
I got ahead of myself with that “h”.
I hope you know it was a joke. An acidic one, as intended, but a joke.
Although it does bring to mind a theory that might explain the snowflake phenomenon. It seems to be a byproduct of technology and pretty much all of us being relatively well-off. I think the generation in question has had it so good, is so soft, that they have to invent these delusions of hardship and persecution. A year or two of volunteer work in some third-world hellhole would give them an appreciation of all that’s taken for granted.
joed68 wrote, “Although it does bring to mind a theory that might explain the snowflake phenomenon. It seems to be a byproduct of technology and pretty much all of us being relatively well-off. I think the generation in question has had it so good, is so soft, that they have to invent these delusions of hardship and persecution.”
I agree.
joed68 wrote, “A year or two of volunteer work in some third-world hellhole would give them an appreciation of all that’s taken for granted.”
I’ve had the opportunity to talk with people that do this kind of volunteer work and your idea only works for a select few individuals. I’m not too sure this kind of service changes the mind set of the vast majority of them, it just pushes them further into their absurd world of being perpetually offended social justice warriors. The problem is that appreciation is only one piece of the puzzle and without genuine critical thinking skills they just can’t seem to apply appreciation to the rest of their lives, instead they turn appreciation into a propaganda tool to condemn and control others – “you can’t possibly appreciate what they are going through; therefore, you are wrong”. I’ve seen this first hand.
True; I’ve seen it too. Maybe couple it with enough near-death experiences. I can certainly say that’s kept me grateful.
Yup, I knew it was supposed to be a joke; that said, it really was a bad joke and earned a stern retort.
Oh, okay.
So much for Fordham’s Jesuit values.
200 comments! (now 201)
Never can predict the posts that go rogue
slickwilly wrote, “Never can predict the posts that go rogue”
If you get Alizia, Chris, & Steve-O-in-NJ all in one thread, you can bet it’s gonna be a long one. Hmmmmm…. I wonder why that is? 😉
To be fair, you and I pushed that total along a bit too 🙂
Yup, ya’ darn right we participated; still…..